DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 (filed 10/27/2025) have been considered in this action. Claims 1-18 are filed in the same format as originally filed.
Election/Restrictions
In the reply filed 10/27/2025, applicant elected Species H and I corresponding to figures 23 and 24 respectively. Accordingly, Species H and I are directed towards an adaptive engine using a ATIMC (adaptive tensor identity mapping sub engine), corresponding to the mapping functionality seen in claim 1 and its dependents. Claims 17-18 do not have this mapping feature, and are considered non-corresponding species to the species shown in figures 23 and 24. Accordingly, the election of the species H and I corresponds with claims 1-16, but does not correspond to claims 17-18.
Claims 1-16 have been elected to be considered in this office action. Claims 17-18 have been withdrawn.
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: “estimation law module”, “control law sub-engine” in claim 1, “stabilization mechanism module” and “stability hypothesis tester” in claim 6, “non-linearities compensation module” in claim 7, “adaptation and estimation law module” in claims 14 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Based upon the provided disclosure, the corresponding structure is a processing device US 20240006169 “[0448] one or more processing devices (e.g., a central processing unit or CPU, a digital processor, an analog processor, a digital circuit designed to process information, an analog circuit designed to process information, a state machine, a field programmable gate array or FPGA, and/or other mechanisms for electronically processing information)”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation describing the input regressor as comprising:
a control output, uout_k-1, from a previous iteration;
…an estimated system output for a current iteration;
…an estimated system output for a previous iteration;
It is unclear what “from a previous iteration” nor what is being iterated is entirely clear. It is unclear what the various “iteration” are referring to, nor what “a control output” is referring to. There is no previously established iterations or control outputs in the claim thus making it unclear what the previous iteration is in relation to. The preamble relates to “provide a control to one or more actuators”; it is unclear if the previous iteration is a previous iteration of: the control to one or more actuators, an output of the estimation law module, a previous iteration of the adaptive engine (i.e. the invention), or some other iteration. It is unclear where “a control output” even comes from because there is no other reference to “a control output” in any other limitation in the independent claims. There is no establishment within the claim towards what is providing the control output in order for a previous iteration of a control output to be considered. There is no reference within the claim to any other “control output” as the closest phrases from the claim relate to “provide a control to one or more actuators” or “possible system outputs”, thus it is unclear which of these outputs or controls are being considered a control output from which a previous iteration is utilized. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner shall consider the input regressor to require a control output signal, which can be for any control cycle, whether current or previous, and can originate from any other algorithm or module in a corresponding system.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the control law sub-engine combines two or more subcomponents of the possible control signal to produce the possible control signal, usE;” however, this limitation utilizes optional features such that it is unclear if this combination step is required by the claims. The optional feature is that that the plurality of mapping modules of the control law sub-engine outputs either/at least one of a subcombination of a possible control signal or an error signal. This leads to a contradictory circumstance in that it is unclear if the output for all the mapping modules is an error signal, what the combining of subcomponents of the possible control signal would even entail, as the claim establishes that error is a valid form of output of the mapping modules and thus this step is seemingly not required. Under the BRI, this also presents the possibility that only a single subcomponent of the possible control signal is determined, and thus it would be unclear what exactly would be combined with the single subcomponent when only one is produced. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner shall consider this step optional and does not require the combination of subcomponents because the BRI of the claim does not require it.
Claims 2-16 are dependent upon claim 1, and thus inherit the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 utilizes the reference character (1) to refer to two separate and distinct elements that are non-corresponding. Claim 1 utilizes the reference character (2) to refer to two separate and distinct elements that are non-corresponding. Because the same reference characters are being utilized to point to two separate and distinct elements, it is considered that the use of the reference characters (1) and (2) are indefinite because they lack a clear and consistent meaning such that the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 2-16 are dependent upon claim 1, and thus inherit the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the error signals" in the “apply one or more estimation law” limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the error signals” is in reference to the same or different “a plurality of error signals” previously established in the claim.
Claims 2-16 are dependent upon claim 1, and thus inherit the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 15 recites the limitation "the adaptation and estimation law module" in their respective limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously established adaptation and estimation law module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed towards an “Adaptive Engine” that under the BRI, can be considered software per se. An adaptive engine as claimed does not contain any hardware elements, and based upon the provided disclosure, the solution covers elements that are “[0533] an entirely software embodiment”. Accordingly, the claims under the BRI are directed towards embodiments that cover software per se, and thus are directed towards elements that are not considered patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to the statutory category of invention of a machine in the form of an Adaptive Engine using a processor and memory to execute the adaptive engine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-16 are apparatus claims directed to an algorithm implemented on a processor that performs the abstract ideas of Mathematical concepts, Mental processes. The acts of applying estimation laws from an error and a regressor and using a non-linear model to produce an estimated system output and combine two or more subcomponents from claim 1 are directed to abstract ideas in the form of steps that are the recitation of mathematical concepts in form of mathematical equations that are written out in long form, or to steps that are capable of being performed mentally in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. For example, applying an estimation law is the mathematical concept of using an estimation formula, using a non-linear model is inherently a mathematical concept of non-linear models, and combining subcomponents can be considered a mathematical addition. The scope of these mathematical principles is broad and simple enough that they can be performed mentally in a person’s mind.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “configured to receive a reference signal and provide a control to one or more actuators, the adaptive engine comprising:”, “produce an estimated model parameter tensor, Θ, for a nonlinear model of the one or more actuators or a power system controlled by the one or more actuators, wherein the estimated model parameter tensor, Θ, comprises a plurality of subcomponents;”, . These limitations describe are directed towards elements that can be considered extra solution activity and amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”, (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “..vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group”). The limitations relating to receive a plurality of error signals and an input regressor, receive at least a portion of the plurality of subcomponents of the estimated model parameter tensor, receive the possible control signal, usE, and the possible estimated system output, yest SE are insignificant as they are mere data gathering steps that are incidental to the solution as they are used in an insignificant way in the performance of the abstract ideas identified above. It would be understood that in order for mathematical concepts to be performed, they would need some form of data collection to execute their mathematical formulas on.
The abstract idea described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those abstract ideas found by the courts, therefor the claim is considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
For example, the claim never positively recites that the output of the selector module is a control output for controlling the actuator in order to form a practical application. Without the control output being used for anything real or practical, it cannot be considered that simply performing mathematical calculations or steps that are capable of being performed in the human mind are anything beyond abstract. The additional elements fail to form a practical application, and are merely insignificant elements that fail to take the claim out of consideration towards being directed to the identified abstract ideas.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of receiving data in various forms, and performing these steps towards a particular field of use of actuator control. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementations and functions
Dependent Claims 2-16 are drawn to further elements that fail to take the claims out of consideration from being directed towards abstract ideas. For example, claims 2 and 11-15 relate to features that articulate the form certain elements take, but yet fail to afford any form of practical application to the claim such that they can merely be considered field of use type limitations. Claims 3-8 and 16 relate to steps that relate to further abstract ideas, such as those capable of being performed in the human mind or the recitation of mathematical concepts, while claims 6 and 16 contain additional elements that relate to generic data gathering that are insignificant extra-solution activity that fail to take the claims out of the realm of mathematical concepts or mental processing steps. These limitations are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Claims 9-10 relate to limitations that merely pass or send data to different modules, and thus fail to offer a practical application because they relate to mere data gathering/sending that is insignificant and fails to form a practical application of the invention.
Claims 2-16 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The examiner notes that a practical application can be formed by the selector module selecting a control output for controlling the one or more actuators as described in [0409] in relation to the elected claims, as this would clearly take the invention out of the realm of abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
In terms of prior art, Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The prior art found relevant but unable to anticipate all of the features of claim 1 includes:
Zhuo et al. (US 20220317636) – teaches a plurality of mappings between manipulated variables, process variables, and indicated variables for mapping a selection of a system that is closest to a controlled object
Zhang et al. (CN 114527660) – teaches a self-adaptive controller that uses an iterative form using previous control outputs and measurements for determining parameterization of a model for controlling a yaw actuator
Cuomo et al. (US 20190391547) – teaches an adaptive controller for a power generator that creates a non-linear model adapted control to determined measured power signal and modeled representation of the power signal via a reference model
Berntorp et al. (US 20190188592) – teaches the use of a measurement model that includes measurement noise and disturbance component so that state estimation in a dynamic system can be updated by an analytical expression
Cline et al. (US 20180119629) – teaches a reference model that gives a reference control signal and which uses a loop selection logic to select between adaptation control based on the reference model and other control loops using different control laws
Zeller et al. (US 20180119628) – teaches an adaptive controller that receive a power request signal and receive, from the real real-time engine model module, the engine parameter estimate which is used to determine a power demand signal based on the power request signal and the engine parameter estimate signal, wherein the adaptive control module is configured to determine the power demand signal based on the power request signal using a set of control laws
Wojsznis et al. (US 20070244575) – teaches a model predictive control process whereby noise is added to a collected process data so that reference models account for noise in the process signals
Islam et al. (Adaptive Control of Discrete-Time Systems with Unknown, Unstable Zero-dynamics) – teaches the use of retrospective cost control for stabilizing and disturbance rejection in a zero-dynamics instability situation
Kharisov et al. (Generalization of L1 Adaptive Control Architecture for Switching Estimation Laws) – teaches an adaptive controller with dead-zone changeover region and which is adapted based on the error between an actual state and model-predicted state of the controlled plant
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights