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 .
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 December 17, 2025.
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 Liang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0278590).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on December 17, 2025, 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 Liang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0278590).
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 Liang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0278590).
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.)
an update part that updates the parameter of the error compensator, ... (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 [i.e., minimize] the counter each time a P value is calculated above the predetermined threshold,” wherein the counter value is based on differences of the measured control values [i.e., defined by the pseudo reference signal], see ¶ 13. The counter value is reflective of how long an error is allowed to exist, see ¶ 169.)
Mangette does not expressly disclose:
... the error compensator determining a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error, which is between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal,
wherein a 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, Liang discloses:
... the error compensator determining a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error, which is between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal, (Liang ¶ 121 discloses “the control quantity at the current moment is determined based on the state quantity error between the desired state quantity at the current moment and the real state quantity at the previous moment and the mapping relationship between the control quantity of the vehicle and the state quantity error, and since the real state quantity at the previous moment is introduced in the determination process of the control quantity, that is, the real state quantity may be used as the feedback signal to determine the control quantity”)
wherein a 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 (Liang ¶ 110 discloses “Based on the neural network model, the braking model may be approximated, and the control quantity is determined based on the approximated braking model and the acceleration error, such that the control quantity may be adjusted adaptively” and “controlling the driving behavior of the vehicle based on the control quantity,” see ¶ 113)
wherein the control system controls movement of the control object. (Liang ¶ 114 discloses “After the adaptive control module determines control quantity u at the current moment, u may be input into the chassis system, and the chassis system controls the driving behavior of the vehicle based on control quantity u, for example, performs the braking operation based on control quantity u”)
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 determining a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error, which is between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, as disclosed by Liang, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve a vehicle control effect and then guarantee stable running of the vehicle, such that precision of the neural network is guaranteed (Liang ¶ 28), and a calculation amount is reduced (Liang ¶ 112), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Mangette in combination with Liang 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 Liang 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 Liang 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 Liang 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 Liang 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 Liang 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.)
updating the parameter of the error compensator ... (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 [i.e., minimize] the counter each time a P value is calculated above the predetermined threshold,” wherein the counter value is based on differences of the measured control values [i.e., defined by the pseudo reference signal], see ¶ 13. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting the amount of time that an error, such as a “large error,” is allowed to exist limits the amount of time that the error would be allowed to continue. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the counter value compensates the error and is an error compensator under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
Mangette does not expressly disclose:
... the error compensator determining a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error, which is between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal,
wherein a 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, Liang discloses:
... the error compensator determining a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error, which is between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, by minimizing an evaluation function defined by the pseudo reference signal, (Liang ¶ 121 discloses “the control quantity at the current moment is determined based on the state quantity error between the desired state quantity at the current moment and the real state quantity at the previous moment and the mapping relationship between the control quantity of the vehicle and the state quantity error, and since the real state quantity at the previous moment is introduced in the determination process of the control quantity, that is, the real state quantity may be used as the feedback signal to determine the control quantity”)
wherein a 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 (Liang ¶ 110 discloses “Based on the neural network model, the braking model may be approximated, and the control quantity is determined based on the approximated braking model and the acceleration error, such that the control quantity may be adjusted adaptively” and “controlling the driving behavior of the vehicle based on the control quantity,” see ¶ 113)
wherein the control system controls movement of the control object. (Liang ¶ 114 discloses “After the adaptive control module determines control quantity u at the current moment, u may be input into the chassis system, and the chassis system controls the driving behavior of the vehicle based on control quantity u, for example, performs the braking operation based on control quantity u”)
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 determining a correction value for correcting the control input outputted from the feedback controller on a basis of an output error, which is between an output of the nominal model and an output of the control object, as disclosed by Liang, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve a vehicle control effect and then guarantee stable running of the vehicle, such that precision of the neural network is guaranteed (Liang ¶ 28), and a calculation amount is reduced (Liang ¶ 112), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662