© 2013-2014 RAF Technology, Inc. A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. 37 CFR §1.71(d).
The following information relates to the use of precision servo technology in detecting the mass of items while they are moving.
An electric servo system in general may comprise an electric motor and a servo amplifier connected in a negative feedback configuration. Referring to
The following is a summary of the invention in order to provide a basic understanding of some aspects of the invention. This summary is not intended to identify key/critical elements of the invention or to delineate the scope of the invention. Its sole purpose is to present some concepts of the invention in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is presented later.
A method for weighing materials whilst they are moving, in one embodiment comprises the steps of (a) driving a conveyor at an initial non-zero velocity; (b) receiving a flow of material on to the moving conveyor over a selected period of time; (c) during the selected time period, acquiring a series of torque sensing signals generated in a servo system that is configured to maintain the conveyor moving at the initial velocity; and (d) calculating a mass per unit time of the material flow based on the torque signal impulse data. This method may be used for measuring flow of various granular solids, slurries and other materials, for example, in an industrial or transportation application.
Additional aspects and advantages of this invention will be apparent from the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying drawings.
The concept of using servo acceleration to detect mass of a small moving object is the subject of previous work such as my U.S. Pat. No. 7,687,727 (and European Patent No. 2195621), incorporated herein by this reference.
A new model emerges as a servo-controlled acceleration concept is applied to requirements involving articles ranging up to 50 kg moving a lower speed than those described above. In these cases, we have discovered a solution that implements a constant acceleration model. The calculations for time varying velocity and position are quite straightforward and derive from the concepts of classical mechanics. Because off-the-shelf servo technology typically accepts only velocity and position commands, the time varying velocity command must be synthesized outside of the servo based on the desired constant acceleration.
Generally, the actual torque generated by the servo system in this new model is not directly controlled by the external source of the velocity command. The torque signal is generated only by the servo amplifier and is derived from the error signal (feedback) or difference between the commanded and actual velocity of the servomotor over time. An example is given below with regard to
In the above example for a mass of 50 kg and an acceleration of 4 m/s^2, a linear force of 200 Newtons is required. If a weighing machine mechanism involving rollers has an effective radius of 50 mm, the torque reflected at the servo motor will be 200 Newtons*0.05 m=10 Nm. In practicality, these torque signals will include electrical and mechanical noise and friction elements that should be filtered or compensated.
As can be seen in
In the graph of
Finally, referring to
It is important to clarify how modern servo systems can be controlled in dynamic weighing applications. Typically, servo systems can accept one of three inputs for controlling the motion of the motor and driven apparatus. These include torque, velocity or position commands. Each mode has specific limitations and suitability to individual application. Servo systems generally employ two distinct feedback paths. These are the velocity and position loops. A description of each mode is as follows:
1—Torque command mode. In this mode both the velocity and position feedback loops are open and no feedback of any kind is used. The torque signal sent to the motor is directly controlled by an outside controller with no correction for any velocity or position error. In fact, a servo system running in torque command mode is not a servo at all since the word servo implies feedback error correction. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servomechanism. A servo system in torque command mode is little different from a dumb electric motor. Any weighing application describing a commanded torque signal e.g. ramping, constant or other is effectively operating the servo in open loop mode thereby defeating any gain associated with servo technology. It should also be noted that a servo system configured to operate in open loop mode (torque command mode) is capable only of a natural response and forgoes any benefit of feedback such as gain/bandwidth trade off. The end result is a slow response to motion commands which prevent application to high speed applications such as parcel sorter systems operating at 3 m/s.
2—Velocity command mode. In this mode the servo velocity loop is closed and error signals resulting from the difference between the commanded and actual velocity are conditioned and amplified to drive a resulting torque signal to the motor. In this mode the torque signal derives only from the error calculations in the servo amplifier. The velocity command signal can be an analog or digital data from an external controller. This is a true servo mode with applications such as conveyor, motion control or similar systems.
3—Position command mode. In position mode, both the velocity and position loops are closed. This is another true servo mode and is used in applications where precise positioning is needed. The input for position mode is frequently called “step and direction” which provides a backward compatibility with stepper motor system controllers. Applications for position mode servos include robotic assembly systems.
The parcel scale systems described in this document makes use of either velocity or position mode control. This is a true servo use model. The servo system accepts a time varying velocity or position command similar to those described above although other time varying velocity or position signals can also be used and should be considered within the scope of this patent application. As a first example, a linear time varying velocity command signal is used. The servo velocity loop is closed and the position loop is open. A linear time varying velocity signal implies by its nature a constant acceleration of a magnitude equal to the slope of the velocity command signal.
In this example, the velocity signal will start with an initial value to spin the scale mechanism at a speed matching the in feed and out feed conveyor systems upstream and downstream from the scale. When an article is detected in contact with the scale roller or belt, the velocity signal will be commanded by an external controller to change speed at a linear rate with respect to time and as a result, a constant acceleration of the mechanism and article to be weighed will occur (4 m/s^2 in the diagrams above although it could be any practical value including negative values). The servo system will respond to the changing velocity command by changing the torque drive signal to the servomotor. The servo system will concurrently monitor the speed of the servomotor and generate an error signal proportional to the difference between the commanded and actual velocity of the motor. The error signal is conditioned and filtered by the servo amplifier and used to generate a new torque signal. This operation typically occurs several thousand times a second. When the weigh operation is complete, the servo returns the motor and driven mechanism to the initial speed setting.
In this embodiment, a servo controller 320 is coupled for commanding the servo amplifier; wherein the servo controller is arranged to first command an initial velocity of the servo motor 310, to then to input a time-varying velocity command 321 to the servo amplifier so as to accelerate the servo motor 310, responsive to the sensor system detecting an item present on the accelerator conveyor. The time-varying velocity command 321 may be linear, as illustrated in
A speed or position sensor (not shown) may be coupled to the servo motor 310 or to the conveyor itself and arranged to provide feedback signals 315 to the servo amplifier 314 responsive to operation of the motor 310. Speed (velocity) or (rotational) position of the motor may be reported. Various means such as encoders for sensing speed or position of motors are known.
In the case of a velocity sensor, the servo amplifier may be configured to compare the feedback signals 315 to the time varying velocity command 321 while the item is present on the accelerator conveyor, to form an error signal. The error signal is converted to generate a time-varying torque sensing signal 317 responsive to the comparison. The generated torque sensing signal 317 preferably is responsive to a total system mass driven by the servo motor (typically including the conveyor and item(s) riding on the conveyor). In an embodiment, a processor 330 may be configured to determine a mass of the item based on the generated torque sensing signal.
Since the acceleration is commanded to be constant via the linear time varying velocity command 21, the force or torque (for rotational systems) is proportional to the mass of the article to be weighed via the equation: (Torque/roller radius)=Mass of article*Commanded acceleration (which is constant for all articles). It is thus that the torque signal generated by the servo amplifier in response to the commanded constant acceleration of an unknown mass is monitored to calculate that mass. An example of these torque signals can be seen in the first graph above in
In some embodiments, a calibration function may be used. Setting a calibration function for the accelerator scale may comprise the following steps:
As an example of the above process, if the linear equation for the 1 Kg article is: 10 Kg=m(slope or gain)*(dynamic torque average)+b(offset), a second similar equation is generated for the 30 Kg article. Isolating one factor, m or b and then substituting into the other equation yields the other factor. All variables are then known. The m and b factor and term are then used in the linear equation to map the dynamic torque measurements to the mass of any articles. Referring once again to
In some embodiments, signal processing (DSP) may be used to separate constant and variable torque elements in the composite torque waveform. For example the 0th harmonic or “DC” value of the waveform derives from the first basis function of the Discrete Fourier transform (DFT). This value corresponds to the constant torque required to move the mechanism with no additional mass. This is used to subtract the constant torque from the variable torque in several measurement models. The 1st basis function represents the “fundamental” frequency or the lowest variable frequency of the torque waveform. This assumes the sample period is identical to the period of the variable torque waveform. This value is the amplitude of the variable torque waveform and corresponds to the force required to accelerate a variable mass which of course is the theory for the operation of the accelerator scale. The remaining basis functions (harmonics) of the DFT may be used in generating filtering functions to “clean up” the variable toque measurement and detect malfunctions, etc. These calculations may be performed by a general purpose processor or by a dedicated DSP processor.
When an item is detected, entering or upon the weighing conveyor, decision 606, a sensor system, for example, notifies the scale control process 652, and the control process begins the weighing process by commanding a constant acceleration, block 610. As mentioned, this may be realized using a servo controller in the embodiment of
The scale control process 652 may invoke or itself may implement a mass calculation process 660. The mass calculation process accesses the stored torque measurements 622, and based on those measurements produces output weight data, which may be provided to a downstream process 680. The weight data also may be stored at 622. Acquired torque sensing data may be converted to mass measurements utilizing the calibration data, or in other embodiments, utilizing a predetermined linear mapping.
A constant torque force will produce a linear ramp change in velocity (curve 400—constant acceleration). The underlying theory is simply F=ma. If acceleration is held constant for all masses, then the force (torque in this case) will vary proportionally to the mass being accelerated. If the variable torque generated by the closed loop servo in response to the disturbance (mass change) is measured, the magnitude of that mass can be inferred from that measurement.
Note that the velocity curve 500 will not change significantly due to introduction of one or more items onto the weighing conveyor. If it does, it will be due to some slippage of the subject article or torque saturation or both. It is also important that the friction profile of the scale remain predictable. If it is randomized or variable by parcel dimension, for example, it could prove difficult to separate out of the measurement. Additional calibration measurements and calculations may be used to correct for deterministic variations.
One advantage of the constant acceleration model is that the relative position of one parcel to the next will be unchanged as they leave the scale. This will be a useful behavior as gapping and throughput becomes important, further discussed below. It is also useful to consider behavior at very high speed operation for example 4 m/s and higher. In this case the acceleration could be reversed (deceleration first). The torque waveform during the acceleration period would simply invert and the system would show the same mass measurements.
Another application of the accelerator weighing technology is that of total accumulated mass as well as the mass flow of solid but granular or slurry type materials. For example, a slurry may comprise a thin mixture of an insoluble substance, as cement, clay, or coal, with a liquid, as water or oil. For present purposes, the slurry must have sufficient viscosity to be moved (accelerated) by a powered conveyance. However, even water may be conveyed with an Archimedes' screw. The screw may be driven by a motor, and the motor in turn controlled by a servo system generally of the type described above. Accordingly, the terms “conveyor” or “conveyance” this description and the claims should be broadly construed, and are not limited to a conveyor belt type of contrivance.
For granular and slurry applications, we preferably command a constant velocity at the servo controller, so that reported torque signal variations result from new material landing on the conveyor belt. In other embodiments, we may command a time varying velocity function. In general, the torque force applied during the acceleration of solid but granular (grains, frozen vegetables, stone, concrete, nails, ground beef, etc) materials can be summed over a period of time to produce a total mass measurement of a flow of said materials. It is then a simple task to report the mass per unit time delivered by the conveyor for a measurement of mass flow e.g. grams/second. This apparatus would obviate the use of gravity based load cells, EMFR or strain gages and as a result would be suitable for relatively high-speed operation and high throughput.
In an embodiment, the accelerator conveyor 710 is driven by a servo motor (see
As shown in
One example of a servo motor that may be used in some embodiments is model M-4650 ServoMotor commercially available from manufacturer Teknic of Pittsford, N.Y. One example of a servo controller/driver that may be used in some embodiments is model ISC-1700 Servo Controller/Drive commercially available from manufacturer Teknic of Pittsford, N.Y. These examples are merely illustrative.
In a parcel weighing system, one object is to detect the mass of a single (moving) item even if there are other items on the weighing conveyor at the same time. In particular, we next disclose how to do such measurements in high speed, high volume processing systems, although these characteristics are not necessary to operation.
A weighing device can be constructed using the principles of acceleration rather than relying on gravity. A servo motor sensor can be arranged to drive a conveyor of any kind and programmed to change the state of motion of items on that conveyor. The force required to change the state of motion are measured implying the mass of the article to be weighed. These basic concepts are the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 7,687,727 and its progeny. But such systems, as noted earlier, are limited to weighing small, singulated items such as mail pieces.
In the parcel logistics industry, volumes of packages are continuously increasing largely due to the increasing volume of on-line shopping and an ever increasing global trade. The speed of logistics processing systems has continuously increased and will continue to do so in the immediately future. One bottleneck in this process are the automatic weighing devices that are based on the constant and vertical acceleration of gravity, the lengthy settling times of these mechanisms and the floor and machine vibrations that distort the measurements. Another limitation of these systems is the requirement that each item to be weighed must be isolated on the scale at a given time to prevent the corruption of the measurement. If the packages are of variable lengths, a complex mechanism must be developed to ensure the isolation of each package regardless of whether it is 6 or 60 inches in length. A final complication arises when the gap between packages is small, making the mechanical transport design more complex still.
A solution to these complexities is realized if an impulse and momentum approach is used in conjunction with a servo driven accelerator weighing system. We have observed that regardless of the mass (parcels) already on the accelerator belt, the impulse required to accelerate the Nth package is the same as if there were no packages on the belt. Intuitively one would suppose that a newly arriving package would slow the mass already on the belt and that the accelerator servo would then need to re-accelerate these package thereby corrupting the measurement. We have determined that in a practical implementation, the momentum of the packages already on the belt is transferred in part to the newly arriving package such that the total momentum of all packages is conserved. The servo motor supplies only the difference of the force needed to accelerate all packages to the final speed which is equal to the impulse required of the Nth package alone. In this way the impulse supplied by the servo is the same whether there are prior packages on the accelerator belt or not.
There may be a relatively small perturbation when a parcel leaves the conveyor, i.e., falls off the end. If desired, in some embodiments, this may be taken into account as follows. As each item is weighed, its mass may be recorded in memory, along with a timestamp or “time of arrival” which may be actual time or relative to some start time. Because the speed of the conveyor is well known, the expected time at which a given parcel will fall off the end can be estimated. Thus the effect of that perturbation can be taken into account. This information can be used to compensate for the case in which a parcel leaves at the same time that a new one arrives.
Our scale enables some extremely useful and valuable configurations. For example, it is required only that the acceleration impulse be isolated in time and not the physical presence of a package on a belt. An acceleration impulse can be 50-100 milliseconds in duration whereas it takes a 60 inch package 600 milliseconds to cross a given point on a conveyor moving at 100 inches per second. This means that the packages can be separated by zero gaps or even a negative gap (overlapping next to one another). This has the effect of greatly increasing the throughput of weighing devices and their surrounding processing systems.
It will be obvious to those having skill in the art that many changes may be made to the details of the above-described embodiments without departing from the underlying principles of the invention. The scope of the present invention should, therefore, be determined only by the following claims.
This application claims priority, under 35 U.S.C. §119, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/819,857, filed May 6, 2013, entitled PARCEL WEIGHING SCALE UTILIZING ACCELERATION and naming Bryan Turner of Redmond Washington as the inventor, and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/894,802, filed Oct. 23, 2013, entitled PARCEL WEIGHING SCALE UTILIZING CONSTANT ACCELERATION AND MASS FLOW OF GRANULAR MATERIALS and naming Bryan Turner of Redmond, Washington as the inventor, both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2538369 | Leary | Jan 1951 | A |
3386574 | Kaplan | Jun 1968 | A |
3431830 | Stovall | Mar 1969 | A |
3566717 | Berman | Mar 1971 | A |
3648839 | Bradshaw | Mar 1972 | A |
3668485 | Norris | Jun 1972 | A |
3724720 | Bullivant | Apr 1973 | A |
3791473 | Rosen | Feb 1974 | A |
3796424 | Fox | Mar 1974 | A |
3805904 | Zimmerer | Apr 1974 | A |
3834474 | Knol | Sep 1974 | A |
3957570 | Helm | May 1976 | A |
4170350 | Conti | Oct 1979 | A |
4194649 | Bullivant | Mar 1980 | A |
4262763 | Raskin | Apr 1981 | A |
RE30684 | Bullivant | Jul 1981 | E |
4277022 | Holdsworth | Jul 1981 | A |
4277918 | Bass | Jul 1981 | A |
4347905 | Berckes | Sep 1982 | A |
4384629 | Kotzin | May 1983 | A |
4461363 | Loy | Jul 1984 | A |
4522277 | Kotzin | Jun 1985 | A |
4534551 | Jones | Aug 1985 | A |
4653630 | Bravin | Mar 1987 | A |
4696358 | Doerman | Sep 1987 | A |
4792002 | Ward | Dec 1988 | A |
4848492 | Hubbard | Jul 1989 | A |
4916391 | Doerman | Apr 1990 | A |
5019991 | Sansone | May 1991 | A |
5056647 | Rosenbaum | Oct 1991 | A |
5070995 | Schaffer | Dec 1991 | A |
5092415 | Asano | Mar 1992 | A |
5133212 | Grills et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5161628 | Wirth | Nov 1992 | A |
5172900 | Uno | Dec 1992 | A |
5259607 | Hironari | Nov 1993 | A |
5303913 | Trouquilla | Apr 1994 | A |
5308932 | Manduley | May 1994 | A |
5383392 | Kowalewski | Jan 1995 | A |
5393939 | Nasuta, Jr. | Feb 1995 | A |
5465662 | Keung | Nov 1995 | A |
5480085 | Smithe | Jan 1996 | A |
5499810 | Tranquilla | Mar 1996 | A |
5524878 | Trouquilla | Jun 1996 | A |
5547034 | Wurz | Aug 1996 | A |
5606913 | Kowalewski | Mar 1997 | A |
5689092 | Wurz | Nov 1997 | A |
5717167 | Filing et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5767452 | Yankloski | Jun 1998 | A |
5850057 | Veillette | Dec 1998 | A |
5850757 | Wierenga | Dec 1998 | A |
5856637 | Vande Berg | Jan 1999 | A |
5869092 | Hays | Feb 1999 | A |
5879000 | Kakuta | Mar 1999 | A |
5902964 | Solberg, Jr. | May 1999 | A |
5939646 | Fowler | Aug 1999 | A |
5959257 | Campbell | Sep 1999 | A |
5998742 | Liu | Dec 1999 | A |
6141883 | Mitchell | Nov 2000 | A |
6268573 | Hartselle | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6274002 | Rulis | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6276421 | Valenti | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6370467 | Kimbrough | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6428639 | Oldenburg | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6464219 | Yee | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6497522 | Wotton | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6498442 | Hara | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6752189 | Oldenburg | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6820873 | Kulpa | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6839694 | Kasmin | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6922025 | Smith | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6940025 | Salomon | Sep 2005 | B1 |
7014187 | Mayerberg, II | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7047827 | Mithal | May 2006 | B1 |
7096152 | Ong | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7182334 | Spence | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7241955 | Hebenstreit | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7271352 | Rabindran | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7297879 | Salomon | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7311192 | Fourney | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7405368 | Beck | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7550681 | Wang | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7687727 | Turner | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7779956 | Breed | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7820923 | Daboub | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7832545 | Giffin | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7838781 | Streder | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7842892 | Wang | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7926647 | Fourney | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8106315 | Turner | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8129635 | Turner | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8133147 | Scekic et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8148650 | Sye | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8153911 | Turner | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8178796 | Allen | May 2012 | B2 |
8399764 | Klosky | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8481870 | Turner | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8481871 | Turner | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8530762 | Turner | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8530764 | Monti | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8981919 | Massey | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8987613 | Turner | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8989971 | Dell' Eva | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8991265 | Dekker | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9018544 | Turner | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9091585 | Turner | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9146148 | Turner | Sep 2015 | B2 |
20020053886 | Hara | May 2002 | A1 |
20020060040 | Rulis | May 2002 | A1 |
20020066649 | Grubbs | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20030034111 | Oldenburg | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030047425 | Lessard | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030052035 | Dickinson | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030163270 | Opitz | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030227268 | Smith | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040202878 | Vidal | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040245071 | Giffin | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050038588 | Shukla | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050139526 | Wilke | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050205307 | Salomon | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050247542 | Salvoni | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267848 | Kenbeek | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060044268 | Robin | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060113129 | Tabata | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060278443 | Saigo | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070045944 | Ban | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070215663 | Chongson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070272450 | Skinner | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080042340 | Linder | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20090008218 | Fourney | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090017880 | Moore | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090071728 | Turner | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090090599 | Fourney | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090216487 | Streder et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100006346 | Turner | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100082389 | Turner | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100163368 | Duchemin | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100282521 | Turner | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100294572 | Turner | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110004441 | Turner | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110005648 | Sa | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110031683 | Asari | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110043537 | Dellon | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110049800 | deJong | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110272197 | Mekid | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110290569 | Turner | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120139984 | Lang | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120166362 | Turner | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120181091 | Lieu | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120270599 | Mori | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120285751 | Turner | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130126533 | Klosky | May 2013 | A1 |
20130207451 | Ohkubo | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130224355 | Bernhardt | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130239648 | Turner | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140131120 | Horst | May 2014 | A1 |
20140224551 | Turner | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140318874 | Moses | Oct 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0482267 | Apr 1992 | EP |
2172751 | Apr 2010 | EP |
2195621 | Jun 2010 | EP |
2302339 | Mar 2011 | EP |
2400276 | Dec 2011 | EP |
9002927 | Mar 1990 | WO |
WO 2007031176 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO 2009036251 | Mar 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
WIPOTEC Principle of Operation; retrieved from the internet on Sep. 13, 2007 at http://www.industrialcontroller.com/wipotec/operation.htm; 2 Pages. |
International Bureau, International Preliminary Report on Patentability, Chapter I of the PCT, for Application No. PCT/US2008/076140, International Filing Date Sep. 12, 2008, Mail Date Mar. 25, 2010. |
International Searching Authority USPTO; International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2008/076140; Jan. 7, 2009; 14 pages. |
European Patent Office, European Search Report for Application No. 09252332.3-2213, mail date Dec. 3, 2009; 7 pages. |
Extended European Search Report dated Aug. 13, 2013, for related European Patent Application No. 13167924.3 filed on May 15, 2013; 5 pages. |
Extended European Search Report dated Sep. 11, 2013, for related European Patent Application No. 112504593.2 filed on Apr. 11, 2011; 6 pages. |
Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP Listing of Related Matters dated Jul. 17, 2014; 1 page. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140327383 A1 | Nov 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61819857 | May 2013 | US | |
61894802 | Oct 2013 | US |