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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/1/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claims 14, 16-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving determining a characteristic of the controller, wherein the characteristic includes at least a description of a structure of the controller, and at least one differential equation to represent a dynamic behavior of the technical system by the differential equation; defining an objective function, wherein the objective function is based on at least one requirement for a safety characteristic and/or for a performance characteristic of the controller and/or of the technical system; formulating an optimization problem, the characteristic of the controller furthermore defines a type of restriction of the state of the technical system, wherein the type is based on an ellipsoid function or a polytope function, determining a limit value or a limit range for the at least one state based on the at least one requirement for the safety characteristic and/or for the performance characteristic of the controller and/or of the technical system, wherein the at least one additional condition furthermore defines a threshold value for the at least one state and/or for at least one input variable of the controller, wherein the defined threshold value according to the additional condition must not be exceeded, defining a cost function, wherein the cost function assigns a weighting value to the at least one state as part of calculating the parameterization in order to provide prioritization of states, wherein the at least one differential equation is a linear differential equation and the dynamic behavior of the technical system is represented by a combination of the at least one differential equation with at least one further linear differential equation, wherein the characteristic of the controller is determined in such a way that values of all states or values of some of the states are taken into account (Claims 14, 16-21 and 23-25), these limitations as described in [0094]-[0098] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) also recite(s) mathematical concepts of wherein the optimization problem is formulated based on the objective function and at least one additional condition, wherein the at least one additional condition ensures at least one restriction of at least one state of the technical system, calculating the parameterization of the controller based on the formulated optimization problem (claims 14 and 23-25, these limitations as described in [0052]-[0069] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the optimization problem and parameterization, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2),.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of the controller, data processing device, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computer (claims 123-25) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. 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. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the controller, data processing device, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computer are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
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) 14, 19, 21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130197677 to Gahinet et al. (hereinafter “Gahinet”), in view of US20140277601 to Sayyarrodsari et al. (hereinafter “Sayyarrodsari”).
As per claim 14, Gahinet discloses a method for calculating a parameterization of a controller for a technical system (Gahinet, see [0031] and [0039]-[0040]), the method comprising the following steps:
determining a characteristic of the controller, wherein the characteristic includes at least a description of a structure of the controller (Gahinet, see [0091]-[0092]), and at least one differential equation to represent a dynamic behavior of the technical system by the differential equation (Gahinent, see [0041] for model 400 may be represented as a linear time-invariant (LTI) model (e.g., a numeric LTI model, a generalized LTI model, a generalized state-space model, it is inherent that a state-space model comprise differential equation);
defining an objective function, wherein the objective function is based on at least one requirement for a safety characteristic and/or for a performance characteristic of the controller and/or of the technical system (Gahinet, see [0066]-[0067] and [0122]-[0125], “soft constraint”);
formulating an optimization problem, wherein the optimization problem is formulated based on the objective function and at least one additional condition (Gahinet, see [0066]-[0067] “hard constraint”); and
calculating the parameterization of the controller based on the formulated optimization problem (Gahinet, see [0031] and [0039]-[0040]).
Gahinet does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one additional condition ensures at least one restriction of at least one state of the technical system.
However, Sayyarrodsari in an analogous art discloses wherein the at least one additional condition ensures at least one restriction of at least one state of the technical system (Sayyarrodsari, see [0029]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Sayyarrodsari into the method of Gahinet. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to control the process by application of the feasible control trajectory within a predetermined time window (Sayyarrodsari, see [0005]).
Claim 23 is a controller claim corresponds to the method claim 14, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 24 is a data processing device claim corresponds to the method claim 14, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 25 is a CRM claim corresponds to the method claim 14, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Gahinet further discloses defining a cost function, wherein the cost function assigns a weighting value to the at least one state as part of calculating the parameterization in order to provide prioritization of states (Gahinet, see [0046]-[0049]).
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Gahinet further discloses the characteristic of the controller is determined in such a way that values of all states or values of some of the states are taken into account (Gahinet, see [0041]-[0044]).
Claim(s) 15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahinet, in view of Sayyarrodsari, further in view of US20210049501 to Kalabic et al. (hereinafter “Kalabic”).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari does not explicitly disclose the at least one state reflects a temporal behavior of a corresponding controlled variable of the controller and indicates a current value of the corresponding controlled variable; and the restriction of the at least one state of the technical system is ensured by the controller controlling the at least one state in such a way that a value of the at least one state remains in an invariant set.
However, Kalabic in an analogous art discloses he at least one state reflects a temporal behavior of a corresponding controlled variable of the controller and indicates a current value of the corresponding controlled variable (Kalabic, see [0033] and [0054]); and the restriction of the at least one state of the technical system is ensured by the controller controlling the at least one state in such a way that a value of the at least one state remains in an invariant set (Kalabic, see [0020] and [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kalabic into the above combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to use the minimum amount of effort needed to stay in the CIS (Kalabic, see [0015]).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari does not explicitly disclose determining a limit value or a limit range for the at least one state based on the at least one requirement for the safety characteristic and/or for the performance characteristic of the controller and/or of the technical system. However, Kalabic in an analogous art discloses determining a limit value or a limit range for the at least one state based on the at least one requirement for the safety characteristic and/or for the performance characteristic of the controller and/or of the technical system (Kalabic, see [0035]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kalabic into the above combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to use the minimum amount of effort needed to stay in the CIS (Kalabic, see [0015]).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one additional condition furthermore defines a threshold value for the at least one state and/or for at least one input variable of the controller, wherein the defined threshold value according to the additional condition must not be exceeded. However, Kalabic in an analogous art discloses wherein the at least one additional condition furthermore defines a threshold value for the at least one state and/or for at least one input variable of the controller, wherein the defined threshold value according to the additional condition must not be exceeded (Kalabic, see [0035]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kalabic into the above combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to use the minimum amount of effort needed to stay in the CIS (Kalabic, see [0015]).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one differential equation is a linear differential equation and the dynamic behavior of the technical system is represented by a combination of the at least one differential equation with at least one further linear differential equation. However, Kalabic in an analogous art discloses wherein the at least one differential equation is a linear differential equation and the dynamic behavior of the technical system is represented by a combination of the at least one differential equation with at least one further linear differential equation (Kalabic, see [0054]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kalabic into the above combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to use the minimum amount of effort needed to stay in the CIS (Kalabic, see [0015]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahinet, in view of Sayyarrodsari, in view of US6064809 to Braatz et al. (hereinafter “Braatz”).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari does not explicitly disclose the characteristic of the controller furthermore defines a type of restriction of the state of the technical system, wherein the type is based on an ellipsoid function or a polytope function. However, Braatz in an analogous art discloses the characteristic of the controller furthermore defines a type of restriction of the state of the technical system, wherein the type is based on an ellipsoid function or a polytope function (Braatz, see col. 5 lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Braatz into the above combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an improved model predictive control process which addresses problems encountered in previous processes (Braatz, see col. 2 lines 21-23).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahinet, in view of Sayyarrodsari, in view of US20220242422 to Thompson et al. (hereinafter “Thompson”).
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Gahinet further discloses implementing the parameterized controller on the technical system (Gahinet, see abstract and [0039]-[0045]). The combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari does not explicitly disclose wherein the technical system is a vehicle and the controller is used for lateral and/or longitudinal control of the vehicle. However, Thompson in an analogous art discloses wherein the technical system is a vehicle and the controller is used for lateral and/or longitudinal control of the vehicle (Thompson, see [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Thompson into the above combination of Gahinet and Sayyarrodsari. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to optimize parameters for a model predictive controller for vehicle navigation (Thompson, see [0001]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20030028266 discloses acquiring and processing parameters used to adjust and tune a controller used, for example, to govern and compensate for motion, including vibrations and disturbances, in a physical system, such as a piece of manufacturing equipment. The invention may also be used to control, for example, a robot or other spatially dependent machine. Included in the invention are systems and methods for generating a controller, and for controlling motion in a physical system or apparatus.
US10768586 discloses using a switching mechanism, a background element can be made active while the application remains active. That is, the application does not need to be taken offline to switch the active element with a previously loaded background element. Single input/single output (SISO) relationships are defined for background elements and an active element which provides one or many functions and an active element which provides one or many functions between one input variable and one output variable. The switching mechanism acts on a given SISO relationship to determine the background element to use to replace the active element.
US11106183 discloses a closed-loop dynamical system subject to an adaptive controller can remain stable if there does not exist significant unmodeled dynamics or the effect of system uncertainties is negligible. In one example, a system includes a controller that can receive one or more input signals including control signals, sensor data associated with operation of the aircraft or aviation system, or a combination thereof; generate an system control signal utilizing a model reference adaptive control architecture comprising an adaptive robustifying term that maintains system stability within defined bounds; and provide the system control signal to an actuator or other system components to adjust operation of, e.g., an aircraft or aviation system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights