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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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; and
a model updating unit for updating the operation model on a basis of a state quantity of the controlled object.
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.
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.
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.
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 including a calculated coefficient has an unstable pole, the coefficient is not reflected in the transfer function indicating the conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit.
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 parameter is not reflected in the 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,
the control quantity calculating unit controls the controlled object to stop upon receiving the notification.
in claim 1-3, 5-8.
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 § 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 6-8 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.
Referring to claim 6, line 7 recites the limitation “the coefficient”, however lines 1-7 recites the limitations of “calculates and updates a coefficient”, and “a calculated coefficient”. Therefore the recitation of “the coefficient” in the same or subsequent claim is unclear because it is uncertain which of the coefficient was intended (MPEP 2173.05(e)). For purposes of examination, it will be assumed to be any of these.
Referring to claim 6, the indefinite claim language is “when the transfer function including a calculated coefficient has an unstable pole, the coefficient is not reflected in the transfer function indicating the conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (when the transfer function including a calculated coefficient has an unstable pole, the coefficient is not reflected in the transfer function indicating the conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the conversion updating unit …, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner.
Referring to claim 7, the indefinite claim language is “when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, the parameter is not reflected in the physical model”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range, the parameter is not reflected in the physical model) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the model updating unit …, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner.
Referring to claim 8, the indefinite claim language is “a notification is transmitted to the control quantity calculating unit when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (a notification is transmitted to the control quantity calculating unit when the parameter calculated is not within a predetermined range) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the model updating unit …, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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
1. 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; and
a model updating unit for updating the operation model on a basis of a state quantity of the controlled object.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 including a calculated coefficient has an unstable pole, the coefficient is not reflected in the transfer function indicating the conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit.
7. 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 parameter is not reflected in the physical model.
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
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 in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about or manually calculating a quantity and updating the model. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 5,633,795 to Popovich.
Popovich teaches:
1, 10. 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”).
2. 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 (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22).
3. 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).
4. 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 (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22).
5. 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 (Figs. 1-5, Col. 3, line 57 – Col. 10, line 22).
6. 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 including a calculated coefficient has an unstable pole, the coefficient is not reflected in the transfer function indicating the conversion characteristic of the dynamic characteristic compensating unit (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.).
7. 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 parameter is not reflected in the physical model (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.).
8. 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 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.).
9. 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights