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 1-10 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has received benefit for an earlier priority date of 08/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0003 recites an “AFR” however it is not clear to the examiner what this acronym refers to, and it is unspecified in the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites “a system comprising: an observer configured to estimate passive component parameters”, which falls into the statutory category of a machine.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “an observer configured to estimate passive components parameters based on digital twin”; “the observer is designed based on a dynamic response difference between a physical system and the digital twin”; “the observer is configured to estimate a lumped disturbance vector (LDV) comprising one or more parameter changes”, and “the one or more parameter changes are caused when: i) a resistance variation changes a grid current to DC link voltage ratio in the physical system, ii) DC side capacitors change a transient time of a DC link voltage, or iii) inductors change a transient time of grid currents.” These limitations recite mathematical concepts – these are concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites, “A system comprising an observer configured to estimate passive component parameters based on digital twin” and “the one or more parameter changes are caused when: i) a resistance variation changes a grid current to DC link voltage ratio in the physical system, ii) DC side capacitors change a transient time of a DC link voltage, or iii) inductors change a transient time of grid currents.”
The observer based on digital twin and parameter changes are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of an observer and parameter changes are at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mathematical processes that the system uses to estimate passive parameter components, using the computer components as a tool (see 2106.04(d)).
At step 2B, 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 elements “observer based on digital twin” and “parameter changes” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2, recites the limitations “an automatic gains tuner configured to receive the LDV to adapt gains of a controller to achieve a predefined response”, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering and manipulation). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3, recites the limitations “an adaptive controller configured to achieve the predefined response after the LDV is estimated and the gains are tuned”, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4, recites the limitations “the controller depends on the inverse dynamics of the physical system”, which is a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a)).
Claim 5, recites the limitations “a PD controller configured to eliminate a tracking error”, which is a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a)).
Claim 6, recites the limitations “the observer implements an inverse dynamics control algorithm that depends on a sixth-order current trajectory generation”, which is a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a)).
Claim 7, recites the limitations “the observer is implemented on an EV charging apparatus”, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8, recites the limitations “the EV charging apparatus supports both vehicle-to-grid and grid-to-vehicle energy transfer”, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9, recites the limitations “the observer is used in determining the direction of energy flow through a bidirectional converter between the grid and a battery of at least one electric vehicle”, which is insignificant extra solution activity (data processing). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10, recites the limitations “the observer is implemented on a household microgrid and electric vehicle charging port”, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohammed et al. USP 11381582 (hereinafter “Mohammed”).
As to claim 1, Mohammed teaches a system comprising:
an observer configured to estimate passive components parameters based on digital twin (page 43, col. 26, lines 7-9, “DT 3 is designed as a physical system observer to estimate the physical system full state” and page 42, col. 23, lines 18-35, “In order to represent the DT physical model, each microgrid can be represented… The parameters Ri, Li and Ci are the equivalent resistance, inductance, and capacitance, respectively of each microgrid”, the digital twin (abbreviated as DT) observer estimates the full state of the system, including passive parameters of resistance, inductance and capacitance), wherein the observer is designed based on a dynamic response difference between a physical system and the digital twin (page 39, col. 17, lines 4-7, “DT observers can run by configuring the inputs with the malicious data sources… for each malicious data source, the residues (Equation (36)) can be calculated” and page 45, col. 30, lines 27-32, “the difference between the DT shadow state and the edge state, which triggered the PCC authentication function (Algorithm 2; FIG. 15). The LO based DT was reconstructed for the reported measurements. The DT observation was used to check the residuals”, residues of a digital twin model are the differences between the observed physical system and predicted data from the digital twin") wherein the observer is configured to estimate a lumped disturbance vector (LDV) comprising one or more parameter changes (page 43, col. 25, lines 7-10, “The Luenberger observer setup is used to put the constructed model into real-time interaction with the real physical/cyber system to estimate the full internal state by removing the noise and ride through the disturbance”, fig. 14, the full state digital twin using an observer is described and shown as a vector in steps 3-4, and page 42, col. 23, lines 18-35, “In order to represent the DT physical model, each microgrid can be represented… The parameters Ri, Li and Ci are the equivalent resistance, inductance, and capacitance, respectively of each microgrid”, the vector of the digital twin observer estimates the state of the system comprising these parameters in real-time), the one or more parameter changes are caused when:
i) a resistance variation changes a grid current to DC link voltage ratio in the physical system (page 42, col. 23, lines 10-34, “modeling networked DC microgrids… the reference voltage at the ith microgrid vit is the microgrid terminal voltage and Iit is the transmitted current from/to microgrid i to the grid. The parameters Ri, Li and Ci are the equivalent resistance, inductance, and capacitance, respectively of each microgrid” and page 23, equation 44, resistance ri has an inverse relationship with microgrid current, thus resistance variation changes the grid current to DC link voltage ratio),
ii) DC side capacitors change a transient time of a DC link voltage (page 41, col. 22, lines 42-47, “The transient stability module is responsible for transient stability assessment, fault critical clearing time, and dynamic voltage stability. The large-signal and small-signal stability modules are provided for the large and small disturbance effect on the stability, respectively”, page 42, col. 23, line 10, “modeling networked DC microgrids” and page 23, equation 44, capacitance Ci has an inverse relationship with the rate of voltage change, thus capacitance variation changes the DC link voltage transient time), or
iii) inductors change a transient time of grid currents (page 35, col. 1, lines 45-56, “dynamics of ith microgrids can be described… I(bar) is the ith microgrid converter average inductor current “, page 41, col. 22, line 50, “performing transient stability analysis (e.g., getTSA( ); analyzing the effect of large or small disturbances”, and page 23, equation 44, inductance Li has an inverse relationship with the rate of grid current change, thus inductance variation changes the grid current transient time).
As to claim 7, Mohammed teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the observer is implemented on an EV charging apparatus (page 31, col. 1, lines 13-17, “The NMG physical system becomes more composite by containing… flexible loads (as electric vehicles)” and page 32, col. 3, lines 3-5, “The taking of corrective action to mitigate any attacks on an NMG of the plurality of NMGs of the DT can comprise: using a Luenberger Observer”).
As to claim 8, Mohammed teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the EV charging apparatus supports both vehicle-to-grid and grid-to-vehicle energy transfer (page 31, col. 1, lines 13-17, “The NMG physical system becomes more composite by containing multiple two-way interconnected systems such as distributed energy resources (DERs), energy storage systems (ESSs), flexible loads (as electric vehicles)” and page 31, col.1, lines 25-27, “The two-way power flow controllability and the transactive energy capabilities of the NMG depend mainly on a large number of bidirectional power electronic converters”).
As to claim 9, Mohammed teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the observer is used in determining the direction of energy flow through a bidirectional converter between the grid and a battery of at least one electric vehicle (page 32, col. 3, lines 3-5, “The taking of corrective action to mitigate any attacks on an NMG of the plurality of NMGs of the DT can comprise: using a Luenberger Observer”, page 42, col. 24, lines 12-17, “physical system model of the NMG can be represented in state-space energy nodes formulation. Let a distribution grid has oth interconnected energy units. These energy units can be…ESS (as battery storage system or thermal storage system)" and page 42, col. 23, lines 12-16, “the implemented physical DT model mainly emphasizes the bidirectional power electronics converters because they are the things that control the power flow transaction and regulates the system parameters”).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. USP 11381582 (hereinafter “Mohammed”) in view of Jacques USPGPUB 2003/0028266 (hereinafter “Jacques”).
As to claim 2, Mohammed teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Mohammed does not explicitly teach an automatic gains tuner configured to receive the LDV to adapt gains of a controller to achieve a predefined response.
However, Jacques teaches an automatic gains tuner configured to receive the LDV to adapt gains of a controller to achieve a predefined response (paragraph 0031, “The tuning methodology proposed here would enable the automation of the computation of the gain schedule, thus allowing the operator to formulate one initial controller and allowing a control system according to the invention to iteratively update and refine the controller” and paragraph 0046-0047, “it may be desirable to update the controller gains… when the system is subject to Gaussian white noise on disturbances and sensors” and paragraph 0049, “estimating, the input/output behavior from all disturbances (including sensor noise), w… this is done by specifying a state space filter which maps disturbances and controller inputs to performance variables and controller outputs”, w is denoted as a vector and the state space filter is a predefined vector framework for mapping disturbances onto a performance and output response).
Mohammed and Jacques are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to smart physical control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above smart physical control system, as taught by Mohammed, to incorporate an automatic gains tuner configured to receive the LDV to adapt gains of a controller, as taught by Jacques.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply self-tuning control techniques to maximize system performance in the presence of variations and overcome unwanted effects of the disturbances in a smart physical control system, as suggested by Jacques, where the control system automatically notices and adjusts itself, as taught by Jacques (paragraph 0005).
As to claim 3, Mohammed teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising: an adaptive controller configured to achieve the predefined response after the LDV is estimated and the gains are tuned (paragraph 0031, “The tuning methodology proposed here would enable the automation of the computation of the gain schedule, thus allowing the operator to formulate one initial controller and allowing a control system according to the invention to iteratively update and refine the controller”, gains of the controller are tuned iteratively, and paragraph 0046-0047, “it may be desirable to update the controller gains… when the system is subject to Gaussian white noise on disturbances and sensors” and paragraph 0049, “estimating, the input/output behavior from all disturbances (including sensor noise), w… this is done by specifying a state space filter which maps disturbances and controller inputs to performance variables and controller outputs”, w is denoted as a vector and the state space filter is a predefined vector framework for mapping disturbances onto a performance and output response).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. USP 11381582 (hereinafter “Mohammed”) in view of Takase et al. USPGPUB 2020/0382032 (hereinafter “Takase”).
As to claim 4, Mohammed teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Mohammed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller depends on the inverse dynamics of the physical system.
However, Takase teaches wherein the controller depends on the inverse dynamics of the physical system (paragraph 0028, “a motor control unit that vector-controls a 3-phase brushless motor based on a d-axis current command value and a q-axis current command value… a d-axis motor inverse model to input the d-axis feedback current… a q-axis motor inverse model to input the q-axis feedback current”, the controller depends on the inverse dynamics of the d-axis and q-axis feedback currents from the motors, which are used to calculate d-axis and q-axis command values for control).
Mohammed and Takase are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to electric vehicle modeling control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above electric vehicle modeling control system, as taught by Mohammed, to incorporate a controller depending on the inverse dynamics of the physical system, as taught by Takase.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance the motor model accuracy of an electric power steering apparatus with a motor control unit, as suggested by Jacques, where the controller depends on the inverse dynamics of the control system, as taught by Jacques (paragraph 0001).
As to claim 6, Mohammed teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Mohammed does not explicitly teach wherein the observer implements an inverse dynamics control algorithm that depends on a sixth-order current trajectory generation.
However, Takase teaches wherein the observer implements an inverse dynamics control algorithm that depends on a sixth-order current trajectory generation (paragraph 0028, “a motor control unit that vector-controls a 3-phase brushless motor based on a d-axis current command value and a q-axis current command value… a d-axis motor inverse model to input the d-axis feedback current… a q-axis motor inverse model to input the q-axis feedback current” and “converting the dq-axes, the fifth and seventh order components are converted into the sixth order component”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. USP 11381582 (hereinafter “Mohammed”) and Takase et al. USPGPUB 2020/0382032 (hereinafter “Takase”) in view of Colby USP 6452360 (hereinafter “Colby”).
As to claim 5, Mohammed and Takase teach all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Mohammed and Takase do not explicitly teach further including a PD controller configured to eliminate a tracking error.
However, Colby teaches further including a PD controller configured to eliminate a tracking error (paragraph 3, “the controller section 14 is shown as a proportional plus integral (PI) controller. However, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the controller could implement any one or combination of proportional, integral or derivative controls” and “The controller section 14 is a known PI controller which receives an input signal 26 from the noise input section 12 and a feedback signal 28 from the plant section 20. In block 34, the controller section 14 subtracts the feedback signal 28 from the input signal 26 to generate an error signal 36. The error signal 36 is then multiplied by a proportional gain signal 30 in block 40 to generate a proportional gain resultant signal 42. The error signal 36 is also multiplied by an integral gain signal 38 in block 44 and integrated in block 46 to generate an integrated gain resultant signal 48. The proportional gain resultant signal 42 and the integrated gain resultant signal 48 are then added in block 50 to generate a controller output signal 52”).
Mohammed, Takase and Colby are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They all relate to physical electric control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above physical electric control system, as taught by Mohammed and Takase, to incorporate a PD controller configured to eliminate a tracking error, as taught by Colby.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce costs associated with tuning the controller a provide a more finely tuned result, as suggested by Jacques, where a PD controller is configured to eliminate a tracking error, as taught by Colby (page 7, col. 2, lines 30-34).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. USP 11381582 (hereinafter “Mohammed”) in view of Yao et al. USPGPUB 2022/0266680 (hereinafter “Yao”).
As to claim 10, Mohammed teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Mohammed does not explicitly teach wherein the observer is implemented on a household microgrid and electric vehicle charging port.
However, Yao teaches wherein the observer is implemented on a household microgrid and electric vehicle charging port (paragraph 0025, “Electrical energy storage device 11 may also be recharged from a stationary power grid via a home charging system or a remote charging system (e.g., a charging station)” and paragraph 0057, “The observer may be for linear or nonlinear dynamic systems, such as different types of Kalman filters, a H-infinity estimator, a Luenberger observer, a PI-based observer, and others that provide a feasible framework to filter the noise and estimate the system states”).
Mohammed and Yao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to electric vehicle modeling control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above electric vehicle modeling control system, as taught by Mohammed, to incorporate the observer implemented on a household microgrid and electric vehicle charging port, as taught by Yao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance the model the system in a way that is simpler to understand, as suggested by Yao, where the observer is implemented on a household microgrid and electric vehicle charging port, as taught by Yao (paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Safamehr et al. USPGPUB 2017/0237364 teaches using an adaptive observer for control providing estimation of grid current and an inverter-side inductor.
Herbst et al. USPGPUB 2021/0313833 teaches a system for the estimation of grid impedance in a power converter by extracting measurements of current and voltage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISAT TABASSUM NOSIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (7:30am - 5:00pm EST).
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/NISAT TABASSUM NOSIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights