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 .
This is the initial Office Action based on the application filed 02/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hahn & Oldham, “A Model-Free On-Off Iterative Adaptive Controller Based on Stochastic Approximation” (2010), hereinafter Hahn.
Claim 10: Hahn discloses a method, comprising:
determining, through a series of iterative experiments, final values for one or more parameters for a control algorithm (e.g., Hahn discloses an iterative adaptive on-off controller using Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation (SPSA). The control parameters (switching times ξ) are updated iteratively based on experimental outcomes (Section III, Fig. 2)), wherein one or more external stimuli are applied to a device under test (DUT) during the series of iterative experiments (e.g., . The controller applies an on-off input voltage (u_max or 0) to a piezoelectric actuator (the DUT). This is explicitly a physical stimulus (Section III-A, Eq. 12)); and
transmitting the final values of the one or more parameters to a controller (e.g., After the iterative process, the optimized ξ* (switching times) are used to configure the controller for subsequent motions (Section V-B)).
Claim 12: Hahn discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the determining further comprises transmitting, by the first processor, the first values of the one or more parameters to the controller (e.g., Step 1 initializes ξ¹, then Step 3 generates input u based on ξ¹ (Section III-D)), wherein the controller is configured to output a first voltage, generated using the control algorithm and the first values for the one or more parameters (e.g., The controller outputs on-off voltage (0 or 15 V) via an H-bridge (Section V-A, Fig. 7)), to drive a first stimulator device configured to apply a first external stimulus to the DUT during a controlled experiment (e.g., The piezoelectric actuator is the stimulator – it deflects the actuator tip (the DUT)); and obtaining, by the first processor, a cost for the controlled experiment derived by the second processor (e.g., Cost is computed from the single sensor measurement at final time (Section III-B, Eq. 15)).
Claim 13: Hahn discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: updating, by the first processor, the one or more parameters by determining, based on a cost function and the cost for the controlled experiment, a new value for at least one parameter of the one or more parameters (e.g., SPSA gradient approximation (Eq. 14) and parameter update (Eq. 13) directly use the cost function value Y⁽⁺ᵏ⁾ (Section III-B)); sending, by the first processor and after the updating, the new value for the at least one parameter of the one or more parameters to the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to output a first voltage, generated using the control algorithm and the new value for the at least one parameter of the one or more parameters, to drive a first stimulator device configured to apply a first external stimulus in the one or more external stimuli to the DUT during a subsequent controlled experiment (e.g., After updating ξᵏ⁺¹, the algorithm loops back to generate a new input sequence and runs another experiment (Step 8→Step 2)); and obtaining, by the first processor, a cost for the subsequent controlled experiment derived by the second processor (e.g., Each iteration produces a new cost value).
Claim 14: Hahn discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: repeatedly performing the updating, the sending, and the obtaining until a terminating condition occurs, wherein the terminating condition comprises one of determining that a number of subsequent controlled experiments conducted equals a maximum test threshold (e.g., Step 1 sets max(k); Step 8 checks termination (Section III-D)) or determining that the cost of the subsequent controlled experiment falls below a maximum cost threshold (e.g., Hahn stops when ξ is smaller than a prespecified bound (Step 8) – analogous to cost below threshold).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn & Oldham, “A Model-Free On-Off Iterative Adaptive Controller Based on Stochastic Approximation” (2010) (hereinafter Hahn).
Claim 11: Hahn teaches the method of claim 10, wherein determining further comprises: conducting an experiment by applying the one or more external stimuli to the DUT with no controller (e.g., Hahn always performs controlled experiments with the current parameter set); and selecting, by the first processor, random numbers for first values of the one or more parameters in the first control algorithm (e.g., Hahn initializes ξ¹ randomly within bounds (Step 1, Section III-D). Random initialization is standard in SPSA).
Not explicitly taught by Hahn is performing uncontrolled experiment and receiving, by the first processor, a cost for the uncontrolled experiment derived by a second processor. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that using a separate processor for cost computation would have been a routine hardware implementation choice (e.g., offloading computation to a co-processor) that would not have changed the underlying method. The absence of an explicit “uncontrolled experiment” is not fatal because one of ordinary skill would recognize that a baseline measurement (e.g., with zero control input) is a trivial first step before iterative tuning.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn & Oldham, “A Model-Free On-Off Iterative Adaptive Controller Based on Stochastic Approximation” (2010) (hereinafter Hahn) and further in view of “Multiplexed Control of Smart Structure Using Piezoelectric Actuators Multiplexed” (hereinafter Nale).
Claim 16: Hahn teaches the method of claim 10, but fails to teach that the determining further comprises applying by a second stimulator device, a second external stimulus of the one or more external stimuli applied to the DUT, wherein the second stimulator device is driven by a second voltage obtained from the second processor. However, Nale explicitly teaches a smart beam with three piezoelectric actuators mounted on the structure. Each actuator receives an independent control voltage (“control inputs are updated sequentially and cyclically”). See Abstract and OhioLINK catalog record. This constitutes a second (and third) stimulator driven by a second (and third) voltage. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have simply replaced Hahn’s single actuator with Nale’s multi-actuator hardware, while retaining Hahn’s iterative parameter update method. Nale expressly states that “in structural control applications … it is often desirable to increase the number of actuators to enhance controllability.”
Claims 17-20 are directed to computer-readable medium embodiments that correspond to the method claims of claims 10-16. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are rejected on same grounds as claims 11-16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The references do not teach or suggest generating an option parameter from a cost evaluation and using that option parameter to select among multiple controllers, including a controller that outputs a null-value actuation voltage. Further, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed arrangement in which a switch selectively routes one of three controller outputs, including a null-value controller output, in response to a processor-generated option parameter derived from measured physical-response costs. The cited references generally optimize parameters within a controller architecture but do not alter controller selection based on a cost-derived option parameter. The prior art also fails to teach or suggest a first stimulator device configured to generate an external stimulus applied to a device under test based on an adjusted actuation voltage selected from among the outputs of the first, second, or third controllers after processing by a saturation block.
Dependent claims 2–9 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of the base claim from which they depend. Additionally, the cited references do not disclose the claimed integration of actuator-generated external stimuli, equilibrium-return control operation, controller selection based on a cost-derived option parameter, and optimization of controller parameters within the specific controller-selection framework recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter as a whole is considered to be nonobvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUERRIER MERANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 Am - 5:00 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights