DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy, for the foreign priority, of Chinese Patent Application No. 202211337295.2 (filed on 10/28/2022), was retrieved by the Office on 12/4/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used.
A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Applicant is encouraged to utilize the EFS-Web eTerminal Disclaimer in order to expedite processing of the terminal disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of co-pending U.S. Patent Applications No. 18/495,300, 18/495,451, 18/495,529, 18/495,321 and 18/495,442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both systems comprise substantially the same elements.
As an illustrative example, claim 1 of the present application is mapped to claim 1 of Application No. 18/495,442 in the following table:
Present Application
Application No. 18/495,442
1. (Original) A method of full-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances, executed on a hardware platform for controlling a controlled plant subject to unmeasurable disturbances, said controlled plant being a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) system with a predetermined number of control inputs and a predetermined number of system outputs, said method comprising:
step 1: at time k, establishing a dynamic data model of said controlled plant subject to unmeasurable disturbances, wherein said dynamic data model is described by a pseudo Jacobian input matrix(k) and a pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix x(k);
step 2: constructing cost functions and solving optimization problems for said cost functions to find an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix(k) in said step 1 and an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix(k) in said step 1;
step 3: employing said dynamic data model described by said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix(k) and said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix(k) in said step 2, designing a full-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances, wherein said control law comprising a full-form adaptive input matrix(k) and a full-form adaptive disturbance matrix(k);
step 4: constructing an energy function and solving said energy function by using a momentum gradient descent method to find an optimal value of said full-form adaptive input matrix(k) in said step 3 and an optimal value of said full-form adaptive disturbance matrix(k) in said step 3;
step 5: controlling said controlled plant by using said full-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances with said optimal value of full-form adaptive input matrix(k) and said optimal value of full-form adaptive disturbance matrix(k) in said step 4, weakening the effect of unmeasurable disturbances on actual system outputs of said controlled plant, achieving effective tracking of desired system outputs of said controlled plant.
1. (Original) A method of full-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control in the presence of measurable disturbances, executed on a hardware platform for controlling a controlled plant subject to measurable disturbances, said controlled plant being a multi-input multi- output (MIMO) system with a predetermined number of control inputs and a predetermined number of system outputs, said method comprising:
step 1: obtaining measurable disturbances at time k, establishing a dynamic data model of said controlled plant subject to measurable disturbances, wherein said dynamic data model is described by a pseudo Jacobian input matrix 0 (k) and a pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix x (k)
step 2: constructing cost functions and solving optimization problems for said cost functions to find an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix 0 (k) in said step 1 and an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix x (k) in said step 1;
step 3: utilizing said measurable disturbances at time k, employing said dynamic data model described by said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix 0 (k) and said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix(k) in said step 2, designing a full-form model- free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of measurable disturbances, wherein said control law comprising a full-form adaptive input matrix(k) and a full-form adaptive disturbance matrix(k);
step 4: constructing an energy function and solving said energy function by using a momentum gradient descent method to find an optimal value of said full-form adaptive input matrix(k) in said step 3, and an optimal value of said full-form adaptive disturbance matrix (of (k) in said step 3;
step 5: controlling said controlled plant by using said full-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of measurable disturbances with said optimal value of full-form adaptive input matrix and said optimal value of full-form adaptive disturbance matrix(k) in said step 4, weakening the effect of measurable disturbances on actual system outputs of said controlled plant, achieving effective tracking of desired system outputs of said controlled plant.
As the above table shows, the two claims are identical except for the measurable and unmeasurable disturbances.
By removing the following limitation(s) from Application No. 18/495,442, the inventions become the same: “unmeasurable”.
The rest of the claims are similarly identical respectively. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights