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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is directed to a control system with a method step of a notification being transmitted. Claims in which both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112, second paragraph. This type of claim is indefinite because it fails to positively recite the boundaries sought for protection. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because it is unclear as to which category of subject matter is sought for protection, i.e., the method or the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites
[Claim 1] (Currently Amended) A control system comprising: a control quantity calculating unit for calculating, on a basis of an operation target, an evaluation index of an operation, and an operation model of a controlled object that is a working machine, a control quantity for driving the controlled object; anda model updating unit for updating the operation model on a basis of a state quantity of the controlled object;wherein the control quantity includes speed and steering of the working machine; and wherein the control system is configured to control operation of the working machine based on the operation model.
[Claim 2] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, further comprising:a command converting unit for converting the control quantity into a command value for a drive unit of the controlled object; anda conversion updating unit for updating a conversion characteristic from the control quantity to the command value on a basis of the command value and a response of the controlled object.
[Claim 3] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, further comprising a tracking target setting unit for receiving a start state and an end state of an operation of the controlled object,calculating a shortest operation path from the start state to the end state, and setting the operation path as the operation target.
[Claim 4] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index includes an evaluation index related to at least one of a state of the controlled object in a work area where the controlled object exists, a state of an object different from the controlled object existing in the work area, and an environmental state of the work area.
[Claim 5] (Original) The control system according to claim 2, wherein the command converting unit is configured to include a steady characteristic converting unit and a dynamic characteristic compensating unit, and the dynamic characteristic compensating unit is a feedforward controller for compensating for a response delay of the drive unit.
[Claim 6] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 5, wherein the conversion updating unit calculates and updates a coefficient of a transfer function indicating a conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit, and when the transfer function has an unstable pole, the dynamic characteristic compensating unit outputs the command value without the coefficient.
[Claim 7] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation model is indicated by a physical model, the model updating unit calculates and updates a parameter included in the physical model on a basis of the state quantity of the controlled object, and when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, the control quantity calculating unit calculates the physical model without the parameter.
[Claim 8] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation model is indicated by a physical model, the model updating unit calculates and updates a parameter included in the physical model on a basis of the state quantity of the controlled object, a notification is transmitted from the model updating unit to the control quantity calculating unit when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, and the control quantity calculating unit controls the controlled object to stop upon receiving the notification.
[Claim 9] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index includes at least one of productivity of the controlled object, energy consumption, a distance to an object other than the controlled object, and exhaust gas properties.
[Claim 10] (Currently Amended) A control method, wherein a control system for controlling a controlled object that is a working machine performs a step of calculating a control quantity for driving the controlled object on a basis of an operation target, an evaluation index of an operation, and an operation model of the controlled object, and a step of updating the operation model on a basis of a state quantity of the controlled object; wherein the control quantity includes speed and steering of the working machine; and wherein the control system is configured to control operation of the working machine based on the operation model.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a unit, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the unit language, calculating a quantity and updating the model and controlling an operation in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about or manually calculating a quantity and updating the model and controlling an operation. Controlling an operation of a working machine is broad in view of the instant disclosure and a POSITA, and can be just control of a calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – unit. The unit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0106764 to Iwasaki, supplied by applicant.
Iwasaki teaches the following:
1,10. (Currently Amended) A control system and method comprising (paragraphs 22-124): a control quantity calculating unit for calculating, on a basis of an operation target (claims 1-9, paragraph 46-122, target), an evaluation index of an operation (claim 6, paragraphs 72-117, evaluation function), and an operation model of a controlled object (claims 1-9, paragraph 46-122, prediction model) that is a working machine (paragraphs 23-34, excavator), a control quantity for driving the controlled object (claims 1-9, paragraphs 84-114, prediction unit 562 recalculates the amount of drive so as to minimize the value of the evaluation function defined by the target value and the current value of the amount of control); and a model updating unit for updating the operation model on a basis of a state quantity of the controlled object (claims 1-9, paragraph 46-122); wherein the control quantity includes speed (claims 4, 34-121, speed) and steering of the working machine (claim 4, paragraph 34-121, rotational speed); and wherein the control system is configured to control operation of the working machine based on the operation model (claims 1-9, paragraph 46-122).
[Claim 2] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, further comprising: a command converting unit for converting the control quantity into a command value for a drive unit of the controlled object; and a conversion updating unit for updating a conversion characteristic from the control quantity to the command value on a basis of the command value and a response of the controlled object (claims 1-9, paragraph 46-122).
[Claim 4] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index includes an evaluation index related to at least one of a state of the controlled object in a work area where the controlled object exists, a state of an object different from the controlled object existing in the work area, and an environmental state of the work area (claim 6, paragraphs 46-117).
[Claim 5] (Original) The control system according to claim 2, wherein the command converting unit is configured to include a steady characteristic converting unit and a dynamic characteristic compensating unit, and the dynamic characteristic compensating unit is a feedforward controller for compensating for a response delay of the drive unit (Fig. 2-10, paragraphs 27-117).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki as applied to claims above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 5,633,795 to Popovich.
Iwasaki fails to teach
[Claim 3] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, further comprising a tracking target setting unit for receiving a start state and an end state of an operation of the controlled object, calculating a shortest operation path from the start state to the end state, and setting the operation path as the operation target.
[Claim 6] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 5, wherein the conversion updating unit calculates and updates a coefficient of a transfer function indicating a conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit, and when the transfer function has an unstable pole, the dynamic characteristic compensating unit outputs the command value without the coefficient.
[Claim 7] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation model is indicated by a physical model, the model updating unit calculates and updates a parameter included in the physical model on a basis of the state quantity of the controlled object, and when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, the control quantity calculating unit calculates the physical model without the parameter.
[Claim 8] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation model is indicated by a physical model, the model updating unit calculates and updates a parameter included in the physical model on a basis of the state quantity of the controlled object, a notification is transmitted from the model updating unit to the control quantity calculating unit when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, and the control quantity calculating unit controls the controlled object to stop upon receiving the notification.
[Claim 9] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index includes at least one of productivity of the controlled object, energy consumption, a distance to an object other than the controlled object, and exhaust gas properties.
Popovich teaches
A control system and method comprising:
a step of calculating a control quantity (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, y or yn) for driving the controlled object (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, actuator 16) on a basis of an operation target (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, “The phase locked loop circuit 32 outputs a reference signal at a particular frequency which is the frequency of the tone being attenuated.”), an evaluation index of an operation (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, for example, any of evaluation indexes of elements 13,14,24,26,28), and an operation model of the controlled object (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, C model);
a control quantity calculating unit for calculating, on a basis of an operation target, an evaluation index of an operation, and an operation model of a controlled object that is a working machine, a control quantity for driving the controlled object (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, see explanation above); and
a model updating unit for updating the operation model on a basis of a state quantity of the controlled object (Col. 2, lines 3-59; Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22, “it is preferred that the C model be adaptively generated on-line”).
[Claim 3] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, further comprising a tracking target setting unit for receiving a start state and an end state of an operation of the controlled object, calculating a shortest operation path from the start state to the end state, and setting the operation path as the operation target (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22).
[Claim 6] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 5, wherein the conversion updating unit calculates and updates a coefficient of a transfer function indicating a conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit, and when the transfer function has an unstable pole, the dynamic characteristic compensating unit outputs the command value without the coefficient (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur.).
[Claim 7] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation model is indicated by a physical model, the model updating unit calculates and updates a parameter included in the physical model on a basis of the state quantity of the controlled object, and when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, the control quantity calculating unit calculates the physical model without the parameter (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur.).
[Claim 8] (Currently Amended) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation model is indicated by a physical model, the model updating unit calculates and updates a parameter included in the physical model on a basis of the state quantity of the controlled object, a notification is transmitted from the model updating unit to the control quantity calculating unit when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, and the control quantity calculating unit controls the controlled object to stop upon receiving the notification (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur.).
[Claim 9] (Original) The control system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index includes at least one of productivity of the controlled object, energy consumption, a distance to an object other than the controlled object, and exhaust gas properties (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22).
Iwasaki and Popovich are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, control systems.
Since Popovich teaches control that enables improved system stability and other problems associated with over parameterization by constraining adaptation of the adaptive parameter bank with respect to the effective null space of the model, wherein these objectives are accomplished by constraining the output from the adaptive parameter bank with respect to the effective null space of the model; further enables accounting for the effects of propagation delay, which accounts for the effect of any change in actuator output to the received error signal; further enables to improve frequency tracking, wherein the invention can accomplish this object by matching output from the adaptive parameter bank in consecutive sample periods, even when the output weighting matrix is replaced, to promote fast tracking (Col. 3, lines 16-34), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the technique of control as taught by Popovich to improve the control system of Iwasaki for the predictable results of enabling improved system stability and other problems associated with over parameterization by constraining adaptation of the adaptive parameter bank with respect to the effective null space of the model, wherein these objectives are accomplished by constraining the output from the adaptive parameter bank with respect to the effective null space of the model; further enables accounting for the effects of propagation delay, which accounts for the effect of any change in actuator output to the received error signal; further enables to improve frequency tracking, wherein the invention can accomplish this object by matching output from the adaptive parameter bank in consecutive sample periods, even when the output weighting matrix is replaced, to promote fast tracking (Col. 3, lines 16-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the control of an operation of a working machine is a practical application of the abstract idea. The examiner disagrees. Controlling any operation and a working machine is broad in view of the instant disclosure and POSITA. Controlling an operation of a working machine is broad in view of the instant disclosure and a POSITA, and can be just control of a calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
All other arguments 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 SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
