DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Due to the amendments made to the specification this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Due to the amendments made to the claims this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (U.S. Pat. No. 8,090,493) in view of Xu (U.S. Pat. No. 9,340,228).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Aso discloses a control apparatus for PI-controlling a control input value to a control object on the basis of a difference between a target value to the control object and an output value from the control object, the control apparatus comprising:
an estimation part that estimates an amount of deviation (col. 3, lines 28-32 discloses inputting a deviation into a Kalman filter) in a control model, in which a differential of an output value of the control object including measurement noise is defined by i) the control input value and ii) an amount of deviation of the output value of the control object from an output value of a normative model, by means of a Kalman filter composed of a state space model (eq. 1);
an adjustment part that adjusts a parameter for setting a Kalman gain of the Kalman filter (col. 7, lines 58-65)
the target value is a target yaw rate of a vehicle (col. 14, lines 4-7),
the control input value is a steering angle inputted to the steering part that steers the vehicle (col. 13, 56-65),
the output value is an actual yaw rate of the vehicle (actual yaw rate is a value in eq. 17), and
the adjustment part adjusts the parameters by constraining a differential of the steering angle to be a predetermined value or less (equation 1 is the start of the calculations and equation 1 is derived with respect to time with the steering angle being part of the basis for the calculations).
Aso does not disclose a calculation part that obtains the control input value on the basis of the estimated amount of deviation, a proportional gain, and an integral gain.
Xu, which deals in steering, teaches a calculation part that obtains the control input value on the basis of the estimated amount of deviation, a proportional gain, and an integral gain (fig. 5 and col. 11, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Aso with the PI controller of Xu because this eliminates tracking error. Xu teaches that for steering a PI controller is used and then also put into a Kalman filter in col. 18, lines 63-65.
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Aso discloses wherein the adjustment part estimates a function having i) the parameter as an input and ii) an evaluation value of an evaluation function defined by the target value, the control input value, and the output value as an output, and the adjustment part adjusts the parameter by obtaining the minimum value of the estimated function (col. 13, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 2, Aso discloses wherein the adjustment part obtains evaluation values of the target value, the control input value, and the output value when the parameters are inputted to the Kalman filter to perform PI control, and estimates the function again (fig. 1 shows that the process repeats).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 2, Aso discloses wherein the adjustment part iterates i) an estimation of the function having the parameter after adjustment as an input and ii) a calculation of a minimum value of the estimated function, a predetermined number of times, and the estimation part estimates the amount of deviation by means of the Kalman filter set by the parameters obtained by the predetermined number of iterations (col. 7, lines 20-29 performs the equations repeatedly so that the values converge).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Aso discloses further comprising: a model conversion part that converts the control model into the state space model (abstract discloses that the model is for movement state), wherein the estimation part estimates the amount of deviation by means of the Kalman filter of the state space model resulting from the conversion by the model conversion part (col. 2, lines 35-41 discloses determination of reliability which is a determination of deviation from true values to the model).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747