DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7, 3-19 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “position detection component”; “driving component”; “safety control component”; “motor driving component”; “first position detection channel”; “second position detection channel”.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20170344417 A1) in view of Nagata (US 20160131508 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a motion control system, comprising:
a position detection component configured to output an absolute position signal, a first relative position signal and a second relative position signal (Fig 1, para 0033-0035 wherein the absolute position synthesis unit and detection unit output signal for absolute position, a first relative position signal from 61 and a second relative position signal from 62; “[0033] The control device 3 includes: an absolute position synthesis unit 5 that synthesizes the first signal and the second signal read by the reading device 2 to generate the synthesized absolute position”; “[0035] The detection unit 6 has a first detection unit 61 that detects a first relative position from the first signal, and a second detection unit 62 that detects a second relative position from the second signal”)
wherein the absolute position signal is output via a first position detection channel in the position detection component (Fig 1 wherein a signal for absolute position is output via a channel), the first relative position signal is output via a position detection channel (Fig 1 wherein a first relative position signal from 61 is output via a channel) and the second relative position signal is output via a second position detection channel in the position detection component (Fig 1 wherein a second relative position signal from 62 is output via a second channel);
a component, configured to obtain the absolute position signal output by the position detection component, determine an abnormal situation of the position detection component based on the absolute position signal (Fig 1, para 0055 wherein “[0055] The absolute position comparison unit 8 executes an absolute position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the synthesized absolute position generated by the absolute position synthesis unit 5 and the first calculated absolute position calculated by the first calculation unit 71 of the position calculation unit 7 to detect an error (step ST11)”;
and a safety control component, configured to obtain the first relative position signal and the second relative position signal output by the position detection component, determine an abnormal situation of the position detection component based on the first relative position signal and the second relative position signal (Fig 1, para 0060 wherein “[0060] The relative position comparison unit 9 executes a relative position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the first calculated absolute position and the second calculated absolute position to detect an error (step ST21)”.
However, Kobayashi fails to teach the absolute position signal and the first relative position signal are output via the first position detection channel, having a driving component configured to obtain the absolute position signal to determine an abnormality and having a driving component and safety control component to generate a motion stop command in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal.
Kobayashi further teaches having various channels for communicating and exchanging data during processing (Fig 1) and generating control signals as well as stopping the encoder in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal (0057-0062 wherein “[0057] When the error information is acquired from the absolute position comparison unit 8, the first error output unit 41 turns on the LED to notify the user, or communicate the error information to the host device. Then, the user or the host device stops the encoder 1, and resets the encoder 1”).
Nagata teaches a motor driving unit and processing information for stopping motor in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal (Fig 1, claim 9, para 0055 wherein “The servomotor according to claim 1, wherein the servomotor stops to operate when the first comparative diagnosis unit determines that the encoder has a fault”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kobayashi’s teachings of outputting an absolute position signal, a first relative position signal and a second relative position signal using different channel and generating control signals as well as stopping the encoder in case of abnormality to incorporate Nagata’s teachings of a motor driving unit and processing information for stopping motor in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal in order to have the absolute position signal is and the first relative position signal are output via the first position detection channel, having a driving component configured to obtain the absolute position signal to determine an abnormality and having driving component and safety control component to generate a motion stop command in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches wherein the driving component is configured to:
obtain an analytical result by analyzing the absolute position signal; and determine the position detection component to be abnormal in case that the analytic result comprises position state information and the position state information is abnormal (Fig 1, para 0054 wherein “[0055] The absolute position comparison unit 8 executes an absolute position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the synthesized absolute position generated by the absolute position synthesis unit 5 and the first calculated absolute position calculated by the first calculation unit 71 of the position calculation unit 7 to detect an error”); and/or,
determine the position detection component to be abnormal in case that the analytic result does not comprise absolute position information.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kobayashi teaches wherein the position detection component comprises the first position detection channel and the second position detection channel (Fig 1);
wherein:
the first position detection channel is configured to detect an absolute position and a first relative position of a measured object, and generate and output the absolute position signal and the first relative position signal (As modified in claim 1, an absolute position and a first relative position of a measured object are detected/obtained using a channel and corresponding position signals are generate and output);
the second position detection channel is configured to detect a second relative position of the measured object, and generate and output the second relative position signal (Fig 1 wherein a second relative position from 62 is detected/obtained and corresponding position signal is output);
the driving component is configured to obtain the absolute position signal output by the first position detection channel (As modified in claim 1, the driving component receives/processes position information from the first position detection channel); and
the safety control component is configured to obtain the first relative position signal output by the first position detection channel and the second relative position signal output by the second position detection channel (Fig 1, 0060 wherein “[0060] The relative position comparison unit 9 executes a relative position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the first calculated absolute position and the second calculated absolute position to detect an error (step ST21)”.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi teaches a motion control system (Fig 1, 0038, 0057 wherein the encoder, motor, and host device are provided) and a motor (0038 wherein “The measurement value output unit 42 outputs the first calculated absolute position as a measurement value, and for example, outputs the measurement value on a display unit such as a display, or transmits the measurement value to a host device that controls a servo motor provided with the encoder 1, and the like”);
wherein the motion control system comprises a position detection component, a motor related component and a safety control component (Fig 1); wherein:
the position detection component is configured to output an absolute position signal, a first relative position signal and a second relative position signal (Fig 1, para 0033-0035 wherein the absolute position synthesis unit and detection unit output signal for absolute position, a first relative position signal from 61 and a second relative position signal from 62; “[0033] The control device 3 includes: an absolute position synthesis unit 5 that synthesizes the first signal and the second signal read by the reading device 2 to generate the synthesized absolute position”; “[0035] The detection unit 6 has a first detection unit 61 that detects a first relative position from the first signal, and a second detection unit 62 that detects a second relative position from the second signal”)
wherein the absolute position signal is output via a first position detection channel in the position detection component (Fig 1 wherein a signal for absolute position is output via a channel), the first relative position signal is output via a position detection channel (Fig 1 wherein a first relative position signal from 61 is output via a channel) and the second relative position signal is output via a second position detection channel in the position detection component (Fig 1 wherein a second relative position signal from 62 is output via a second channel);
the motor related component is configured to obtain the absolute position signal output by the position detection component, determine an abnormal situation of the position detection component based on the absolute position signal (Fig 1, para 0055 wherein “[0055] The absolute position comparison unit 8 executes an absolute position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the synthesized absolute position generated by the absolute position synthesis unit 5 and the first calculated absolute position calculated by the first calculation unit 71 of the position calculation unit 7 to detect an error (step ST11)”;
and a safety control component, configured to obtain the first relative position signal and the second relative position signal output by the position detection component, determine an abnormal situation of the position detection component based on the first relative position signal and the second relative position signal (Fig 1, para 0060 wherein “[0060] The relative position comparison unit 9 executes a relative position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the first calculated absolute position and the second calculated absolute position to detect an error (step ST21)”.
However, Kobayashi fails to teach a robot comprising the motion control system and motor wherein the absolute position signal and the first relative position signal are output via the first position detection channel, having a motor driving component configured to obtain the absolute position signal to determine an abnormality and trigger a motion stop command in case of abnormality and safety control component to send the motion stop command in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal and the motor driving component is configured to control the motor to stop operating based on the motion stop command.
Kobayashi further teaches having various channels for communicating and exchanging data during processing (Fig 1) and generating control signals as well as stopping the encoder in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal (0057-0062 wherein “[0057] When the error information is acquired from the absolute position comparison unit 8, the first error output unit 41 turns on the LED to notify the user, or communicate the error information to the host device. Then, the user or the host device stops the encoder 1, and resets the encoder 1”).
Nagata teaches a robot comprising the motion control system and motor (0019 wherein “[0019] The motor 2 rotates a pulse disk 50 within the encoder 3A by rotating a rotational shaft 51. One end of the rotational shaft 51 is connected to the pulse disk 50 and the other end thereof is connected to a robot arm or the like. The motor 2 is current-controlled by the motor control device 4”), a motor driving unit and processing information for stopping motor in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal (Fig 1, claim 9, para 0055 wherein “The servomotor according to claim 1, wherein the servomotor stops to operate when the first comparative diagnosis unit determines that the encoder has a fault”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kobayashi’s teachings of outputting an absolute position signal, a first relative position signal and a second relative position signal using different channel and generating control signals as well as stopping the encoder in case of abnormality to incorporate Nagata’s teachings of a motor driving unit and processing information for stopping motor in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal in order to have a robot comprising the motion control system and motor wherein the absolute position signal and the first relative position signal are output via the first position detection channel, having a motor driving component configured to obtain the absolute position signal to determine an abnormality and trigger a motion stop command in case of abnormality and safety control component to send the motion stop command in case that the position detection component is determined to be abnormal and the motor driving component is configured to control the motor to stop operating based on the motion stop command. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 2
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 7
mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20170344417 A1), Nagata (US 20160131508 A1) in view of Tazawa (US 20040085035 A1) and Asensio (US 20200394479 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches wherein the safety control component is configured to:
determine the first relative position signal, and determine the second relative position signal and determine the position detection component to be abnormal (Fig 1, para 0060 wherein “[0060] The relative position comparison unit 9 executes a relative position comparison process that performs the comparison operation between the first calculated absolute position and the second calculated absolute position to detect an error (step ST21)”.
However, Kobayashi fails to teach to determine a first velocity according to the first relative position signal, and determine a second velocity according to the second relative position signal; determine a first velocity difference between the first velocity and the second velocity according to the first velocity and the second velocity; and determine the position detection component to be abnormal in case that the first velocity difference is greater than a first difference threshold.
Tazawa teaches to determine a velocity according to the position signal (0004 wherein “The speed calculation section 506 calculates rotation speed from the output of the position detector 502”).
Asensio teaches a redundant detection system including circuitry to determine a first velocity, and determine a second velocity; determine a first velocity difference between the first velocity and the second velocity according to the first velocity and the second velocity; and determine the position detection component to be abnormal in case there is the first velocity difference (0019 wherein “[0019] It will be appreciated that the speed of the print head carriage 100 relative to the encoder strip 108 can be determined by the first detector 112, by the second detector 114 or separately by both the first detector 112 and the second detector 114. In examples where the speed is determined separately by both the first detector 112 and the second detector 114, a discrepancy between the two speeds can be indicative of an anomaly in the detection signal of the first detector 112 of the second detector 114”). Asensio also teaches comparing a difference to a threshold to determine abnormality (0019 “In examples, the anomaly can be determined to be in the detection signal of the second detector 114 when the speed determined using the samples of the detection signal of the second detector 114 is different from a previously determined speed by a predetermined threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kobayashi’s teachings to determine the first relative position signal, and determine the second relative position signal and determine the position detection component to be abnormal to incorporate Tazawa’s teachings to determine a velocity according to the position signal and Asensio’s teachings of determine the position detection component to be abnormal in case of difference between the first velocity and the second velocity in order to determine a first velocity according to the first relative position signal, and determine a second velocity according to the second relative position signal; determine a first velocity difference between the first velocity and the second velocity according to the first velocity and the second velocity; and determine the position detection component to be abnormal in case that the first velocity difference is greater than a first difference threshold. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 4
mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 5, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20170344417 A1), Nagata (US 20160131508 A1) in view of Tazawa (US 20040085035 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 including the safety control component and driving component. However, Kobayashi fails to teach wherein the safety control component is configured to determine a first velocity according to the first relative position signal, determine a second velocity according to the second relative position signal, and send the first velocity and the second velocity to the driving component; and the driving component is further configured to receive the first velocity and the second velocity.
Kobayashi also teaches various components for processing as well as exchanging information during operation (Fig 1).
Tazawa teaches to determine a velocity according to the position signal (0004 wherein “The speed calculation section 506 calculates rotation speed from the output of the position detector 502”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kobayashi’s teachings of having the safety control component and driving component and having various components for processing as well as exchanging information during operation to incorporate Tazawa’s teachings to determine a velocity according to the position signal in order to have wherein the safety control component is configured to determine a first velocity according to the first relative position signal, determine a second velocity according to the second relative position signal, and send the first velocity and the second velocity to the driving component; and the driving component is further configured to receive the first velocity and the second velocity. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 5
mutandis mutatis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 15, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights