Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/495,529

PARTIAL-FORM MODEL-FREE ADAPTIVE DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION CONTROL IN THE PRESENCE OF UNMEASURABLE DISTURBANCES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY
Art Unit
2118
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
181 granted / 332 resolved
-0.5% vs TC avg
Strong +56% interview lift
Without
With
+55.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
366
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 332 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 26 October 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim. 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 . 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Reference Application 18/495,321 Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/495,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Instant Application No. 18495529 Reference Application No. 18495321 1. A method of partial-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: 1. A method of compact-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 PNG media_image1.png 19 11 media_image1.png Greyscale (k) and a pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix PNG media_image2.png 25 40 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 PNG media_image3.png 19 11 media_image3.png Greyscale (k) and a pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix PNG media_image4.png 25 49 media_image4.png Greyscale step 2: constructing cost functions and solving optimization problems for said cost functions to find an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix PNG media_image5.png 19 11 media_image5.png Greyscale (k) in said step 1 and an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix PNG media_image6.png 19 11 media_image6.png Greyscale (k) in said step 1; step 2: constructing cost functions and solving optimization problems for said cost functions to find an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix PNG media_image7.png 19 11 media_image7.png Greyscale (k) in said step 1 and an optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix PNG media_image8.png 25 40 media_image8.png Greyscale in said step 1; step 3: employing said dynamic data model described by said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix PNG media_image9.png 19 11 media_image9.png Greyscale (k) and said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix PNG media_image10.png 19 11 media_image10.png Greyscale (k) in said step 2, designing a partial-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances, wherein said control law comprising a partial-form adaptive input matrix PNG media_image11.png 23 20 media_image11.png Greyscale (k) and a partial-form adaptive disturbance matrix PNG media_image12.png 23 23 media_image12.png Greyscale (k) ; step 3: employing said dynamic data model described by said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian input matrix PNG media_image13.png 19 12 media_image13.png Greyscale (k) and said optimal value of said pseudo Jacobian disturbance matrix PNG media_image14.png 25 40 media_image14.png Greyscale in said step 2, designing a compact-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances, wherein said control law comprising a compact-form adaptive input matrix PNG media_image15.png 20 18 media_image15.png Greyscale (k) and a compact-form adaptive disturbance matrix PNG media_image16.png 25 61 media_image16.png Greyscale 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 partial-form adaptive input matrix PNG media_image17.png 23 20 media_image17.png Greyscale (k) in said step 3 and an optimal value of said partial-form adaptive disturbance matrix PNG media_image18.png 23 23 media_image18.png Greyscale (k) in said step 3; 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 compact-form adaptive input matrix PNG media_image19.png 19 18 media_image19.png Greyscale (k) in said step 3 and an optimal value of said compact-form adaptive disturbance matrix PNG media_image20.png 20 21 media_image20.png Greyscale (k) in said step 3; step 5: controlling said controlled plant by using said partial-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances with said optimal value of partial-form adaptive input matrix PNG media_image21.png 23 20 media_image21.png Greyscale (k) and said optimal value of partial-form adaptive disturbance matrix PNG media_image22.png 23 23 media_image22.png Greyscale (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. step 5: controlling said controlled plant by using said compact-form model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control law in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances with said optimal value of compact-form adaptive input matrix PNG media_image23.png 20 18 media_image23.png Greyscale (k) and said optimal value of compact- form adaptive disturbance matrix PNG media_image24.png 20 21 media_image24.png Greyscale (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. The differences in dependent claims 2-10 are summarized as describing compact-form in the reference application while describing partial-form in the instant application. Reference Application 18/495,300 Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/495,300. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The differences in claims 1-10 are summarized as describing measurable in the reference application while describing unmeasurable disturbances in the instant application. The subject matter claimed in the Instant Application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application in view of Zhang (Model-Free Adaptive Control Compensated with Disturbance) hereinafter known as Zhang and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control However, Application No. 18/495,300 does not teach unmeasurable disturbances. Zhang teaches using estimation of disturbances. (Zhang: pgs. 1-2) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the Instant Application such that the method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control is in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to design a disturbance rejection controller, as suggested by Zhang: pg. 1. Reference Application 18/495,451 Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/495,451. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The differences in claims 1-10 are summarized as describing measurable disturbances in the reference application while describing unmeasurable disturbances in the instant application. The subject matter claimed in the Instant Application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application in view of Zhang (Model-Free Adaptive Control Compensated with Disturbance) hereinafter known as Zhang and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control However, Application No. 18/495,451 does not teach unmeasurable disturbances. Zhang teaches using estimation of disturbances. (Zhang: pgs. 1-2) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the Instant Application such that the method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control is in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to design a disturbance rejection controller, as suggested by Zhang: pg. 1. Reference Application 18/495,424 Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/495,424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The differences in claims 1-10 are summarized as describing full-form in the reference application while describing partial-form in the instant application. The subject matter claimed in the Instant Application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application in view of Zhang (Model-Free Adaptive Control Compensated with Disturbance) hereinafter known as Zhang and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control However, Application No. 18/495,424 does not teach full-form. Zhang teaches using estimation of disturbances and using full-form, partial, and compact form process models. (Zhang: pgs. 1-2) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the Instant Application such that the method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control is in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances. One would have been motivated to make such a combination allows to take into account other forms, as suggested by Zhang: pg. 1. Reference Application 18/495,442 Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/495,442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The differences in claims 1-10 are summarized as describing full-form and measurable disturbances in the reference application while describing partial-form and unmeasurable disturbances in the instant application The subject matter claimed in the Instant Application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application in view of Zhang (Model-Free Adaptive Control Compensated with Disturbance) hereinafter known as Zhang and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control However, Application No. 18/495,442 does not teach full-form and unmeasurable disturbances. Zhang teaches using estimation of disturbances and using full-form, partial, and compact form process models. (Zhang: pgs. 1-2) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the Instant Application such that the method of model-free adaptive disturbance compensation control is in the presence of unmeasurable disturbances. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to design a disturbance rejection controller, as suggested by Zhang: pg. 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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. /ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594706
INJECTION MOLDING CONDITION GENERATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584649
AIR CONDITIONER SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583351
METHOD FOR MONITORING AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING APPARATUS, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING APPARATUS IMPLEMENTING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578850
CONFIGURABLE VIRTUAL WHITEBOARD GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE WITH AUTOMATION REGIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572988
THERMOSTAT HAVING NETWORK CONNECTED BRANDING FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+55.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 332 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month