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 .
Claims 2-21 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 and 01/12/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,080,530. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Parent Patent 12,080,530 anticipate the claims of the Instant Application as set forth below.
Patent 12,080,530
Claim 1
Instant Application
Claim 2
A device comprising:
A device comprising:
a reference model module, configured to receive a setpoint input and a reference model input, and to generate a reference model output based at least in part on the setpoint input and the reference model input;
an adaptation law module, configured to receive the reference model output from the reference model module, to perform a signum projection tensor operation based at least in part on the reference model output, and to generate a signum projection adaptation law output, based at least in part on the signum projection tensor operation; and
an adaptation law module, configured to receive a reference model output, to perform a signum projection tensor operation based at least in part on the reference model output, and to generate a signum projection adaptation law output, based at least in part on the signum projection tensor operation; and
an adaptive control module, configured to receive the signum projection adaptation law output from the adaptation law module, to receive the setpoint input, and to receive a sensor system output from a sensor system, and to generate an adaptive control signal based at least in part on the signum projection adaptation law output, the setpoint input, and the sensor system output.
an adaptive control module, configured to receive the signum projection adaptation law output from the adaptation law module, to receive a setpoint input, and to receive a sensor system output from a sensor system, and to generate an adaptive control signal based at least in part on the signum projection adaptation law output, the setpoint input, and the sensor system output.
Therefore, as to claim 2, claim 1 of the Parent Patent ‘530 clearly anticipates claim 2 of the instant application and more.
As to claims 3-21, claim 2-20 of the Parent Patent ’530 clearly anticipate claim 3-21 of the instant application.
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: “an adaptation law module” and “an adaptive control module” in claim 2.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
Claims 2-15 are 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 limitation “an adaptation law module” and “an adaptive control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The adaptation law module is recited as being configured to receive a reference model output, performs a signum projection tensor operation, generate a signum projection adaptation law output and the adaptive control module is recites as being configured to receive the signum projection adaptation law output, receive a setpoint input, receive a sensor system output, generate an adaptive control signal. Because these limitations are computer-implemented means-plus function limitations, the specification must disclose corresponding structure in the form of an algorithm sufficient to perform the claimed functions. The specification fails to disclose sufficient structure and/or algorithm corresponding to the recited functions. Absent adequate disclosure of corresponding structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function for the “an adaptation law module” and “an adaptive control module”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-10, 12-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coumou et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0391547 (“Coumou”) in view of Eugene Lavretsky et al. “Predictor-Based Model Reference Adaptive Control” July-August 2010 (“Lavretsky”).
Regarding claim 2, Coumou teaches a device [Power generator 74 - Fig. 4] comprising:
an adaptation law module [Adaptive Controller 96 – Fig. 5], configured to receive a reference model output [Ym from Reference Model 98], to perform a see par. 0059], and to generate a generates adaptive signals θ.sub.0 and θ.sub.1] output, based at least in part on the
[0053] Adaptive controller 96 receives as inputs a modeled output signal Ym output by reference model 98, and a measured representation y of the output from sensor 88. Adaptive controller 96 receives the two inputs and generates adaptive signals θ.sub.0 and θ.sub.1 for adaptively adjusting operation of power controller 84.
[0055] FIG. 5A depicts an expanded block diagram of adaptive controller 96. Adaptive controller 96 receives a signal y from transfer function D.sub.1(z) 94 indicating the measured output y of power amplifier 86, such as power, forward power, reverse power, voltage or current. Adaptive controller 96 receives a predicted output y.sub.m of power amplifier 86 as determined by reference model 98, as will be described in greater detail herein. Adaptive controller 96 includes a summer 104 which determines a difference or error e between measured output y and predicted output y.sub.m. The error is applied to a pair of multipliers or mixers 106, 108.
[0059] The output from mixer 106 is applied to scalar 110 which applies a scaling value—Gamma0 to the output from mixer 106. Similarly, the output from mixer 108 is input to scalar 112 which applies a scaling factor Gamma1 to the output from mixer 108. Scalars 110 and 112 scale the outputs from the mixers in order to determine a learning rate for adaptive controller 96. The output from scalar 110 is input to integrator 114, and the output from scalar 112 is input to integrator 116. The output from integrator 114 defines an adaptive rate value θ.sub.0 which is input to power controller 84. As will be described in greater detail herein, θ.sub.0 defines a rate of adjustment of a control signal output to power amplifier 86. The output from scalar 112 is input to integrator 116 which outputs an integrated value to mixer 120. Mixer 120 mixes the integrated value output from integrator 116 with the measured output y to generate θ.sub.1. As will be described in greater detail herein, θ.sub.1 represents an offset to the control signal scaled by θ.sub.0. Throughout the disclosure, Gamma0, y.sub.0, and θ.sub.0 are used interchangeably and synonymously to denote feedforward path; and Gamma1, y.sub.1, and θ.sub.1 are used interchangeably and synonymously to denote feedback path.
an adaptive control module [84+100], configured to receive the Setpoint r], and to receive a sensor system output [Sensor 88] from a sensor system [signal y – see Fig. 4A], and to generate an adaptive control signal [Uc] based at least in part on the
[0049] Power generator 74 includes power controller 84 (D.sub.C(z)) which generates a control signal applied or communicated to power amplifier 86. The control signal applied to power amplifier 86 may include one or a plurality of signals to control one or more electrical parameters of power amplifier 86, including voltage, current, frequency, and rail value. The control signal applied to power amplifier 86 is an analog signal. The type and content of the control signal may depend on the type of class of the power amplifier 86. Power amplifier 86 outputs an amplified signal (DC or RF) to sensor 88. Sensor 88 senses the signal output by power amplifier 86 and also passes the amplified power through to match network 76 for application to non-linear load 72. Sensor 88 may be configured as an integral or a separate component of power generator 74. Sensor 88 generates an output signal, either a voltage and current or a forward and reverse power signal to A/D converter 90. A/D converter 90 converts the analog signals received from sensor 88 into digital signals and outputs the digital signal X(n) to scaling module 92, which applies a scaling factor K, and to adaptive rate controller 100. Scaling factor K compensates for the sensor output to generate a continuous time, sampled signal. The output from scaling module 92 is applied or input to transfer function module 94, represented as D.sub.l(z), which outputs a signal y representative of the output from power amplifier 86. The measured signal y is applied to power controller 84 and to adaptive controller 96. Scaling module 92 also communicates with power controller 84 via a communications link which, in various embodiments, enables sharing of internal direct digital synthesizer (DDS) information to enable synchronizing their respective DDSs.
In summary, Coumou teaches a model reference adaptive control system for controlling a power generator. The system includes a reference model, an adaptation law module, and an adaptive control module. The adaptation law module computes undated adaptive parameters using information derived from the reference model and measured system behavior. The adaptive control module receives these updated parameters, receives a command or setpoint input, and receives sensor outputs from the generator and associated system to generate an adaptive control signal.
Coumou does not explicitly describe the parameter updates as an “signum projection tensor operation.”
Lavretsky teaches that adaptive parameter updates may include sign or sign-definite terms and may be constrained using a projection operator of the form Proj (O,Y), where O is a matrix-valued parameter. Because matrices are second-order tensors, Lavretsky teaches applying projection and sign-based update terms to tensor-value adaptive parameters. In other words, Lavretsky teaches deriving stable adaptive laws on tracing error dynamics for MIMO uncertain systems. Because tracking error is generated using reference model outputs, and because MIMO adaptive laws update matrix-value parameters, Lavretsky teaches performing a projection-based matrix (tensor) adaptive update based on reference model information. When combined with the well-known projection operator techniques disclosed by Lavretsky, the resulting implementation corresponds to the claimed “signum projection tensor operation.”
THIS paper is devoted to the design and analysis of stable direct adaptive controllers for multi-input–multi-output (MIMO) dynamical systems with matched uncertainties. Specifically, we propose the use of a state predictor in formulating adaptive laws. Starting with a direct model reference adaptive control (MRAC) system [1–3], we design a state predictor using the system full state measurements. Then, through Lyapunov stability analysis, we develop a provably correct variant of state-predictor-based stable state-feedback adaptive laws.
In this section, we formulate the system dynamics, pose the control problem, and derive tracking
error dynamics for adaptive control design. We begin by considering a class of MIMO uncertain
systems in the form:
Theorem 3.1: Consider the uncertain system dynamics in Eq. (9), operating under the PMRAC
controller in Eq. (29), with the state predictor in Eq. (19). Suppose that the matching relations
in Eq. (10) hold. Let the reference model in Eq. (14) be driven by some bounded and possibly
time-varying reference command r(t). Then, 1) All signals in the closed-loop system,
Remark 3.2: Comparing MRAC laws in Eq. (17) with PMRAC laws in Eq. (29), it is evident that the presence of the state predictor in Eq. (19) adds the low-pass filtering effects of the prediction
dynamics to the direct MRAC laws. Details can be found in [4].
Remark 3.3: PMRAC design extension to MIMO systems with nonparametric uncertainties is
straightforward and can be accomplished by using well-known and adaptive control robustification methods [1–3,11], such as a) dead zone, b) a modification, c) e modification, and d) projection operator. In this case, only bounded (i.e., not asymptotic) command tracking can be achieved. [see pages 1-4].
As discussed earlier, the better transient performance characteristics provided by PMRAC can be attributed to the inclusion of the prediction error e^ into the adaptive laws. The main difference between a conventional MRAC augmentation and the proposed PMRAC augmentation lies in the fact that, while the parameters in the conventional MRAC are updated based on the tracking error between the plant and the reference model, in the PMRAC case, the adaptive laws are also designed to minimize the prediction error in the input–output measurements. In addition to the tracking error in conventional MRAC laws, the prediction error in PMRAC provides extra information about the system uncertain parameters. This allows the predictor-based adaptive augmentation to retain stability and tracking performance, while potentially improving the robustness and transient performance of a conventional direct MRAC
augmentation. [see page 7]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the signum projection tensor operation (projection-based matrix adaptive update) of Lavretsky into Coumou’s adaptation law to bound parameter estimates, prevent windup and parameter drift, and improve robustness under uncertainty.
Regarding claim 3, Coumou in view of Lavretsky teaches the adaptation law module comprises a signum projection tensor module configured to perform the signum projection tensor operation based at least in part on the reference model output [See fig. 5 of Coumou].
Regarding claim 5, Coumou teaches a filter [CIC filters], configured to receive the adaptive control signal from the adaptive control module, and to generate a filtered control signal based at least in part on the adaptive control signal [see par. 0086-0090].
Regarding claim 6, Coumou teaches the filter comprises a hysteresis-based sliding mode filter [par. 0077. 0092-0096].
Regarding claim 7, Coumou teaches the filter is configured to output the filtered control signal to a radio frequency (RF) power amplifier [Fig. 11, 13, 316 of Fig. 18 and par. 0132].
Regarding claim 8, Coumou teaches the adaptation law module is further configured to receive the setpoint input, and to generate the signum projection adaptation law output based also at least in part on the setpoint input [see 96 and 84 of Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 9, Coumou teaches the adaptive control module comprises a gain parametrized control module [the adaptive rate subsystem controller 142 is the gain parametrized control module which receives parameter control output p, a gain related parameter; Fig. 10, 11, instance 154; par. 0084-0086].
Regarding claim 10, Coumou teaches the adaptive control module comprises one or more proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control modules [power controller 84 is implemented as a PID; Fig. 6, instance 132; par. 0076].
Regarding claim 12, Coumou teaches a setpoint control user interface configured to output a setpoint control signal to the reference model module [power setpoint r is an electrical parameter output from a power generator module and an interface is an implicit feature of any module; par. 0053, 0139].
Regarding claim 13, Coumou teaches a computing environment configured to output a reference model output to the reference model module [the at least one electrical parameter is output by power generator 74 module and an interface is an implicit feature of any module; par. 0047, 0049, 0053, 0139].
Regarding claim 14, Coumou teaches a filter [lead filter D-l(z); Fig. 4B, 94; par. 0050] configured to output a filtered control signal based at least in part on the adaptive control signal, and a radio frequency (RF) power amplifier [signal y of the lead filter indicates the measured output of a power amplifier; par. 0055], configured to receive the filtered control signal from the filter, to receive power from a power source, and to output RF power to a load [power amplifier inputs a control signal and outputs an amplified signal for application to load; par. 0047-0049].
Regarding claim 15, Coumou teaches a match network, a plasma chamber, and the sensor system, wherein the load [a non-linear load may be a plasma chamber, matching network; Fig. 4A, instance 72; par. 0047] comprises at least one of the match networks [match or matching networks; Fig. 4A, instance 76; para. 0047-0048] and the plasma chamber [plasma chamber having electrodes; par. 0034-0047], wherein the match network is configured to receive the RF power from the RF power amplifier [the plasma chamber receives RF power from the match network; par. 0054] and to output RF power to the plasma chamber, and wherein the sensor system is configured to detect data from the match network and the plasma chamber [sensor system is used to detect measurements including forward and reflected power of the voltage and current of the RF signal applied to the load; par. 0039], and to generate the sensor system output to output to the adaptive control module [sensor system output is X(n) is send to adaptive rate controller; par. 0037, 0049].
Regarding claims 19-20, they are directed to a system to implement the method of steps as set forth in claims 1-2. Therefore, they are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coumou in view of Eugene Lavretsky and Peters US Pub. No. 2014/0251967.
Regarding claim 16, Coumou teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, the instruction comprising instruction for:
receiving, by a control device [Reference Model 98], a setpoint input [Power Setpoint r] and a reference model [function Hm(z)], and generating a reference model output [Ym], based at least in part on the setpoint input and the reference model;
receiving, by the control device, the reference model output [Ym from Reference Model 98], perform a see par. 0059], and generating a generates adaptive signals θ.sub.0 and θ.sub.1] output, based at least in part on the
[0053] Adaptive controller 96 receives as inputs a modeled output signal Ym output by reference model 98, and a measured representation y of the output from sensor 88. Adaptive controller 96 receives the two inputs and generates adaptive signals θ.sub.0 and θ.sub.1 for adaptively adjusting operation of power controller 84.
[0055] FIG. 5A depicts an expanded block diagram of adaptive controller 96. Adaptive controller 96 receives a signal y from transfer function D.sub.1(z) 94 indicating the measured output y of power amplifier 86, such as power, forward power, reverse power, voltage or current. Adaptive controller 96 receives a predicted output y.sub.m of power amplifier 86 as determined by reference model 98, as will be described in greater detail herein. Adaptive controller 96 includes a summer 104 which determines a difference or error e between measured output y and predicted output y.sub.m. The error is applied to a pair of multipliers or mixers 106, 108.
[0059] The output from mixer 106 is applied to scalar 110 which applies a scaling value—Gamma0 to the output from mixer 106. Similarly, the output from mixer 108 is input to scalar 112 which applies a scaling factor Gamma1 to the output from mixer 108. Scalars 110 and 112 scale the outputs from the mixers in order to determine a learning rate for adaptive controller 96. The output from scalar 110 is input to integrator 114, and the output from scalar 112 is input to integrator 116. The output from integrator 114 defines an adaptive rate value θ.sub.0 which is input to power controller 84. As will be described in greater detail herein, θ.sub.0 defines a rate of adjustment of a control signal output to power amplifier 86. The output from scalar 112 is input to integrator 116 which outputs an integrated value to mixer 120. Mixer 120 mixes the integrated value output from integrator 116 with the measured output y to generate θ.sub.1. As will be described in greater detail herein, θ.sub.1 represents an offset to the control signal scaled by θ.sub.0. Throughout the disclosure, Gamma0, y.sub.0, and θ.sub.0 are used interchangeably and synonymously to denote feedforward path; and Gamma1, y.sub.1, and θ.sub.1 are used interchangeably and synonymously to denote feedback path.
receiving, by the control device, the Setpoint r], and receiving a sensor system output [Sensor 88] from a sensor system [signal y – see Fig. 4A], and generating an adaptive control signal [Uc] based at least in part on the
[0049] Power generator 74 includes power controller 84 (D.sub.C(z)) which generates a control signal applied or communicated to power amplifier 86. The control signal applied to power amplifier 86 may include one or a plurality of signals to control one or more electrical parameters of power amplifier 86, including voltage, current, frequency, and rail value. The control signal applied to power amplifier 86 is an analog signal. The type and content of the control signal may depend on the type of class of the power amplifier 86. Power amplifier 86 outputs an amplified signal (DC or RF) to sensor 88. Sensor 88 senses the signal output by power amplifier 86 and also passes the amplified power through to match network 76 for application to non-linear load 72. Sensor 88 may be configured as an integral or a separate component of power generator 74. Sensor 88 generates an output signal, either a voltage and current or a forward and reverse power signal to A/D converter 90. A/D converter 90 converts the analog signals received from sensor 88 into digital signals and outputs the digital signal X(n) to scaling module 92, which applies a scaling factor K, and to adaptive rate controller 100. Scaling factor K compensates for the sensor output to generate a continuous time, sampled signal. The output from scaling module 92 is applied or input to transfer function module 94, represented as D.sub.l(z), which outputs a signal y representative of the output from power amplifier 86. The measured signal y is applied to power controller 84 and to adaptive controller 96. Scaling module 92 also communicates with power controller 84 via a communications link which, in various embodiments, enables sharing of internal direct digital synthesizer (DDS) information to enable synchronizing their respective DDSs.
In summary, Coumou teaches a model reference adaptive control system for controlling a power generator. The system includes a reference model, an adaptation law module, and an adaptive control module. The adaptation law module computes undated adaptive parameters using information derived from the reference model and measured system behavior. The adaptive control module receives these updated parameters, receives a command or setpoint input, and receives sensor outputs from the generator and associated system to generate an adaptive control signal.
Coumou does not explicitly describe the parameter updates as an “signum projection tensor operation.”
Lavretsky teaches that adaptive parameter updates may include sign or sign-definite terms and may be constrained using a projection operator of the form Proj (O,Y), where O is a matrix-valued parameter. Because matrices are second-order tensors, Lavretsky teaches applying projection and sign-based update terms to tensor-value adaptive parameters. In other words, Lavretsky teaches deriving stable adaptive laws on tracing error dynamics for MIMO uncertain systems. Because tracking error is generated using reference model outputs, and because MIMO adaptive laws update matrix-value parameters, Lavretsky teaches performing a projection-based matrix (tensor) adaptive update based on reference model information. When combined with the well-known projection operator techniques disclosed by Lavretsky, the resulting implementation corresponds to the claimed “signum projection tensor operation.”
THIS paper is devoted to the design and analysis of stable direct adaptive controllers for multi-input–multi-output (MIMO) dynamical systems with matched uncertainties. Specifically, we propose the use of a state predictor in formulating adaptive laws. Starting with a direct model reference adaptive control (MRAC) system [1–3], we design a state predictor using the system full state measurements. Then, through Lyapunov stability analysis, we develop a provably correct variant of state-predictor-based stable state-feedback adaptive laws.
In this section, we formulate the system dynamics, pose the control problem, and derive tracking
error dynamics for adaptive control design. We begin by considering a class of MIMO uncertain
systems in the form:
Theorem 3.1: Consider the uncertain system dynamics in Eq. (9), operating under the PMRAC
controller in Eq. (29), with the state predictor in Eq. (19). Suppose that the matching relations
in Eq. (10) hold. Let the reference model in Eq. (14) be driven by some bounded and possibly
time-varying reference command r(t). Then, 1) All signals in the closed-loop system,
Remark 3.2: Comparing MRAC laws in Eq. (17) with PMRAC laws in Eq. (29), it is evident that the presence of the state predictor in Eq. (19) adds the low-pass filtering effects of the prediction
dynamics to the direct MRAC laws. Details can be found in [4].
Remark 3.3: PMRAC design extension to MIMO systems with nonparametric uncertainties is
straightforward and can be accomplished by using well-known and adaptive control robustification methods [1–3,11], such as a) dead zone, b) a modification, c) e modification, and d) projection operator. In this case, only bounded (i.e., not asymptotic) command tracking can be achieved. [see pages 1-4].
As discussed earlier, the better transient performance characteristics provided by PMRAC can be attributed to the inclusion of the prediction error e^ into the adaptive laws. The main difference between a conventional MRAC augmentation and the proposed PMRAC augmentation lies in the fact that, while the parameters in the conventional MRAC are updated based on the tracking error between the plant and the reference model, in the PMRAC case, the adaptive laws are also designed to minimize the prediction error in the input–output measurements. In addition to the tracking error in conventional MRAC laws, the prediction error in PMRAC provides extra information about the system uncertain parameters. This allows the predictor-based adaptive augmentation to retain stability and tracking performance, while potentially improving the robustness and transient performance of a conventional direct MRAC
augmentation. [see page 7]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the signum projection tensor operation (projection-based matrix adaptive update) of Lavretsky into Coumou’s adaptation law to bound parameter estimates, prevent windup and parameter drift, and improve robustness under uncertainty.
Coumou teaches the reference model may employ a state space model or linear quadratic integral (LQI) model or a Kalman filter or linear quadratic estimate (LQE) model. Coumou does not teach the reference model module configured to receive a reference model input.
Peters teaches another power generator [SEE fig. 1 and 2] with waveform control function. Specifically, Peters teaches reference model module [Waveform Generator 265] configured to receive a setpoint input and a reference model input.
[0006] In some exemplary embodiments, the power supply includes a waveform type selector that selects a desired shape for an output waveform and a setpoint selector that sets an output setpoint for the power supply, e.g., a peak or average output current value, a peak or average output voltage value, etc. The power supply further includes a waveform generator that generates the reference waveform signal based on the desired shape. The waveform generator includes a target generation circuit that generates a plurality of target values corresponding to the reference waveform signal. The waveform generator also includes a transition circuit that performs a series of transitions between the plurality of target values to generate the reference waveform signal, and a ramp circuit that controls a ramp speed of at least one transition of the series of transitions based on the desired shape. The generation of a target value corresponding to a peak value (e.g., peak current or peak voltage) of the reference waveform signal is based on at least the output setpoint. [READ par. 0023-0024]
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power generator of Coumou with a reference model module configured to receive a reference model input of Peters. The motivation for doing so would has been to improve the flexibility of the power generator of Coumou by allowing the operator the ability to select the designed reference model.
Regarding claim 17, Coumou receiving the adaptive control signal generating a filtered control signal based at least in part on the adaptive control signal [see par. 0086-0090].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection (or with proper filing of a Terminal Discloser), USC 112(a), 112(b) set forth in this Office Action and to including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office Action (or with proper filing of a Terminal Discloser) and to including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 4, 11, 18, 21 are considered allowable since, when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of subject matter specified in the dependent claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2017/0147722 to Greenwood teaches a method of modelling system behaviour of a physical system, the method including, in one or more electronic processing devices obtaining quantified system data measured for the physical system, the quantified system data being at least partially indicative of the system behaviour for at least a time period, forming at least one population of model units, each model unit including model parameters and at least part of a model, the model parameters being at least partially based on the quantified system data, each model including one or more mathematical equations for modelling system behaviour, for each model unit calculating at least one solution trajectory for at least part of the at least one time period; determining a fitness value based at least in part on the at least one solution trajectory; and, selecting a combination of model units using the fitness values of each model unit, the combination of model units representing a collective model that models the system behaviour.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights