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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 04/22/2026.
Claims 1-8 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-8 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangette et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0043787) in view of Zhu (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0361438).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on 04/22/2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Zhu (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0361438).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
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: “a first acquisition part,” “a second acquisition part,” and “an update part” in claims 1-8.
Structure for these limitations is provided in paragraph 31 describing the limitations to be parts of a controller which includes a central processing unit (CPU).
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.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangette et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0043787) in view of Zhu (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0361438).
Regarding claim 1, Mangette discloses a parameter update device for updating a parameter of an error compensator in a control system including a feedback controller for outputting a control input on a basis of an output of a control object and a target value (Mangette in at least ¶¶ 67-68), and the error compensator for correcting the control input to the control object in order to suppress a model error of a nominal model modeling the control object (Mangette in at least ¶ 169 disclosing that the counters are adjusted), the parameter update device comprising:
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute: (Mangette in at least ¶ 46)
a first acquisition part that acquires input data indicating the control input to the control object and output data indicating the output from the control object; (Mangette ¶ 103 discloses a traction control module (TCM) 258 [i.e., a first acquisition part] that uses, thereby acquiring, a traction setpoint [i.e., input data] which the TCM will use to control operation of the traction motor 264. See Fig. 2B depicting the TCM 258 acquiring input data from traction speed control input signal 260, which is data output from the traction control input sensor 262 indicating the output from the control object.)
a second acquisition part that acquires a pseudo reference signal, which is a control target value, using the input data and the output data; and (Mangette ¶ 67 discloses steering control module (SCM) 272 [i.e., a second acquisition part] that uses, thereby acquiring, a setpoint for controlling steering motor 274 [i.e., a control target value]. The steering control input signal 278. Also see Fig. 2B depicting the SCM 272 acquiring the control target value, or setpoint value, from the steering control input signal 278 which is output from the steering control input sensor 276.)
Mangette does not expressly disclose:
an update part that updates the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal,
wherein the error compensator determines a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object,
wherein the control input to be inputted to the control object is determined on a basis of the correction value and the control input outputted from the feedback controller, and
wherein the control system controls movement of the control object.
However, Zhu discloses:
an update part (Zhu in at least ¶ 52 “PID control system 514 continuous updates the lateral distance error”) that updates the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal, (Zhu in at least ¶ 45 discloses minimizing a cost function, “A linear-quadratic control system is a linear control system which models a given system (e.g., vehicle and reference path) to minimize a quadratic cost function such that a certain optimal criterion can be achieved.”)
wherein the error compensator determines a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, (Zhu ¶ 51 “A PID control system is a control loop feedback mechanism that continuously calculates an error value as the difference between a desired setpoint (SP) and a measured process variable (PV) and applies a correction based on proportional, integral, and derivative coefficients for the error value,” wherein the output 501 is a lateral distance error value and is integrated to correct the error, wherein the lateral distance error is updated in real-time, see ¶ 52)
wherein the control input to be inputted to the control object is determined on a basis of the correction value and the control input outputted from the feedback controller, and (Zhu ¶¶ 52-53 discloses correcting a lateral distance error, wherein the “error value is calculated based on the zero SP, and a feedback of PV 601, which is an actual lateral distance error sensed by sensor system 115 (e.g., a first lateral distance error)” and controlling the ADV to minimize a lateral distance between an actual path taken by the ADV and the reference path.)
wherein the control system (Zhu in at least ¶ 42 “control system 111”) controls movement of the control object. (Zhu ¶ 43 discloses a path tracking module 308 that “controls the ADV along the reference path using a path tracking algorithm, including: determining a first lateral distance error” and “using the path tracking algorithm to control the ADV to minimize a lateral distance error, e.g., a lateral distance between an actual path taken by the ADV and the reference path.” Also see at least ¶ 27.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the error compensation of Mangette with an update part that updates the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal,, as disclosed by Zhu, with reasonable expectation of success, because such a system can model a vehicle and a reference path system which achieves an optimal criterion while at a stable state (Zhu ¶ 45), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Mangette in combination with Zhu discloses the parameter update device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first acquisition part acquires the input data and the output data if a difference between the target value and the output is larger than a predetermined threshold value. (Mangette ¶ 13 discloses that “for each respective difference: a) determining if the difference is greater than a difference threshold; and when the difference is greater than the difference threshold, incrementing a first counter value, ... incrementing a first counter value.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the difference values are first acquired in order to incremented upon.)
Regarding claim 3, Mangette in combination with Zhu discloses the parameter update device according to claim 1, wherein:
the second acquisition part acquires the pseudo reference signal on a basis of a transfer function of the nominal model based on a mass of the control object, a transfer function of the error compensator, the input data, and the output data. (Mangette ¶ 118 discloses using a “transfer function model” based on actual operating conditions, wherein the model includes a “mass of all elements of the vehicle” and using the counter value in the transfer function model to generate a diagnostic signal, see ¶ 118. Also see the models being based on the inputs and outputs in Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 4, Mangette in combination with Zhu discloses the parameter update device according to claim 1, wherein:
the update part updates the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing the evaluation function defined by a reference model configured to result in a desired response characteristic and the pseudo reference signal. (Mangette ¶ 117 discloses that a diagnostic supervisor 252 [i.e., update part] may “increment [i.e., update] a counter [i.e., error compensator] each time a P value is calculated below the predetermined threshold and decrement the counter each time a P value is calculated [i.e., minimize an evaluation function] above the predetermined threshold,” the calculating the P value being indicative of a fault condition and is therefore an evaluation function, see ¶ 118, and wherein the model uses a counter value to generate a diagnostic signal for a fault condition, the evaluation function thereby being defined by the model, see ¶ 118)
Regarding claim 5, Mangette in combination with Zhu discloses the parameter update device according to claim 4, wherein:
the update part updates the parameter of the error compensator by finding a minimum value of the evaluation function defined by a difference between; i) a product of the reference model and the pseudo reference signal; and ii) the output data. (Mangette ¶ 17 discloses incrementing [i.e., updating] a first counter value when the difference is greater than a first difference threshold 94 discloses locating a wheel angle value 718, while ¶ 109 discloses identifying a minimum value 719. See Fig. 7B)
Regarding claim 6, Mangette in combination with Zhu discloses the parameter update device according to claim 1, wherein:
the control object is a vehicle (Mangette in at least ¶ 39), the input data is data indicating a driving force of the vehicle (Mangette ¶ 156 “a torque to a linearly applied force can be accomplished by scaling the torque value based on a) a gear ratio between the traction motor and the traction, or driven, wheel”), and the output data is vehicle speed data of the vehicle.(Mangette ¶ 144 “this applied torque value selected from the lookup table of FIG. 6, if applied to an actual vehicle's traction wheel should produce a vehicle speed”)
Regarding claim 7, Mangette in combination with Zhu discloses the parameter update device according to claim 6, wherein:
the update part updates the parameter of the error compensator for correcting the control input for suppressing the model error caused by a travel resistance of the vehicle. (Mangette ¶ 89 discloses generating a steering control input signal 276 which may be “converted to a digital value which can be scaled and adjusted [i.e., updated] to represent a value that has units appropriate for ... a steered wheel angle,” such that the counter is associated when an error is greater than a first difference threshold amount, see ¶ 166, the counter which may be adjusted, see ¶ 169)
Regarding claim 8, Mangette discloses the parameter update method for updating a parameter of an error compensator in a control system including a feedback controller for outputting a control input on the basis of an output of a control object and a target value (Mangette in at least ¶¶ 67-68), and an error compensator for correcting a control input to the control object in order to suppress a model error of a nominal model modeling the control object (Mangette in at least ¶ 169 disclosing that the counters are adjusted), the parameter update method comprising the steps of:
acquiring input data indicating the control input to the control object and output data indicating the output from the control object; (Mangette ¶ 103 discloses a traction control module (TCM) 258 [i.e., a first acquisition part] that uses, thereby acquiring, a traction setpoint [i.e., input data] which the TCM will use to control operation of the traction motor 264. See Fig. 2B depicting the TCM 258 acquiring input data from traction speed control input signal 260, which is data output from the traction control input sensor 262 indicating the output from the control object.)
acquiring a pseudo reference signal, which is a control target value, using the input data and the output data; and (Mangette ¶ 67 discloses steering control module (SCM) 272 [i.e., a second acquisition part] that uses, thereby acquiring, a setpoint for controlling steering motor 274 [i.e., a control target value]. The steering control input signal 278. Also see Fig. 2B depicting the SCM 272 acquiring the control target value, or setpoint value, from the steering control input signal 278 which is output from the steering control input sensor 276.)
Mangette does not expressly disclose:
an update part that updates the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal,
wherein the error compensator determines a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object,
wherein the control input to be inputted to the control object is determined on a basis of the correction value and the control input outputted from the feedback controller, and
wherein the control system controls movement of the control object.
However, Zhu discloses:
updating the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal, (Zhu in at least ¶ 45 discloses minimizing a cost function, “A linear-quadratic control system is a linear control system which models a given system (e.g., vehicle and reference path) to minimize a quadratic cost function such that a certain optimal criterion can be achieved.”)
wherein the error compensator determines a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, (Zhu ¶ 51 “A PID control system is a control loop feedback mechanism that continuously calculates an error value as the difference between a desired setpoint (SP) and a measured process variable (PV) and applies a correction based on proportional, integral, and derivative coefficients for the error value,” wherein the output 501 is a lateral distance error value and is integrated to correct the error, wherein the lateral distance error is updated in real-time, see ¶ 52)
wherein the control input to be inputted to the control object is determined on a basis of the correction value and the control input outputted from the feedback controller, and (Zhu ¶¶ 52-53 discloses correcting a lateral distance error, wherein the “error value is calculated based on the zero SP, and a feedback of PV 601, which is an actual lateral distance error sensed by sensor system 115 (e.g., a first lateral distance error)” and controlling the ADV to minimize a lateral distance between an actual path taken by the ADV and the reference path.)
wherein the control system (Zhu in at least ¶ 42 “control system 111”) controls movement of the control object. (Zhu ¶ 43 discloses a path tracking module 308 that “controls the ADV along the reference path using a path tracking algorithm, including: determining a first lateral distance error” and “using the path tracking algorithm to control the ADV to minimize a lateral distance error, e.g., a lateral distance between an actual path taken by the ADV and the reference path.” Also see at least ¶ 27.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the error compensation of Mangette with an update part that updates the parameter of the error compensator by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal,, as disclosed by Zhu, with reasonable expectation of success, because such a system can model a vehicle and a reference path system which achieves an optimal criterion while at a stable state (Zhu ¶ 45), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sternheim (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0097872) discloses a system and method for performing attitude control of moving vehicles described herein provides optimal control methods including feedback control techniques for onboard, real-time attitude control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights