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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on March 18th, 2025. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on May 4th, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to DE102024202834.7 filed March 25th, 2024.
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.
Claims 5-8 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "a contribution for the control components id determined" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the contribution is the same as or different from the “contribution shares of each of the control components are determined” of claim 4 on which claim 5 depends. Claims 6-8 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-5043862 (hereinafter, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 1 Takahashi discloses a partially computer-implemented method for operating a control system to control a technical device of a technical system with a proportional component and at least one of a differential component and an integral component as control components (see at least [Col. 1, lines 6-14]; “this invention relates to a method and apparatus of automatically setting PID (proportional plus integral plus derivation) constants used for process control,” and [Col. 8, lines 39-40]; “the PID controller operable as described above may be realized using a microcomputer”), the method comprising:
providing control parameters of a parameter set for calculating the control components depending on an operating range determined by an operating point and/or an operating state of the technical system (see at least [col. 3, lines 9-31]; “PID constants are preferably derived through fuzzy reasoning…a knowledge processing selector responds to results of decision to select a knowledge base for the set-point change or for the disturbance, and a characteristic value selector selects characteristic values for the set-point change or for the disturbance. Then, on the basis of the selected knowledge base and characteristic values, a fuzzy reasoning unit derives new PID constants and sets them in a PID action (calculator). In this manner, PID constants suited for either one of the setpoint change and disturbance can be set,” The control parameters correspond to the PID constants the operating ranges correspond to a set point change or disturbance, and the operating points correspond to the characteristic values);
controlling the technical device based on a control deviation and the control parameters (see at least [col. 9, lines 10-15]; “Advantageously, the present invention can materialize the auto-tuning controller which can control the process such that proper control response can be obtained from the process during the set-point change and the applied disturbance or process characteristic change,” the process determines the proper control response based on control deviation and the control parameters as disclosed throughout the specification, it would be obvious that this control response would be implemented within a technical device/system); and
adapting the control parameters for one or more operating ranges based on a presence of an adaptation condition based on a control behavior within an optimization horizon associated with the adaptation condition (see at least [Col. 4, lines 36-49]; “Detection of the peak of the error signal waveform is started when the absolute value of the error exceeds predetermined values ±BD which have been preset manually in advance. Unless the absolute value exceeds the predetermined values, peak detection is not performed, characteristic values are not calculated and PID constants are not changed,” the PID constants, which correspond to the Applicant’s control parameters, are changed if the absolute value exceeds the predetermined value, this corresponds to Applicant’s adaptation condition during the settling time, which corresponds to Applicant’s horizon),
wherein the optimization horizon determines a time period within which a course of the control deviation is used to adapt the control parameters (see at least Fig. 4, St is the settling time and is a time period during which control deviation occurs and where data from said time period is used to adapt the control parameters, which corresponds to Applicant’s optimization horizon).
Regarding claim 2 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein:
a first adaptation condition provides that an adaptation is carried out when a substantial undershoot or overshoot has occurred (see at least [Col. 4, lines 36-49]; “Detection of the peak of the error signal waveform is started when the absolute value of the error exceeds predetermined values ±BD which have been preset manually in advance. Unless the absolute value exceeds the predetermined values, peak detection is not performed, characteristic values are not calculated and PID constants are not changed,” the PID constants, which correspond to the Applicant’s control parameters, are changed if the absolute value exceeds the predetermined value, this corresponds to Applicant’s adaptation condition during the settling time, which corresponds to Applicant’s horizon),
the substantial undershoot or overshoot is determined when an absolute control deviation is greater than a specified first deviation amount for a predetermined first time period and the control deviation subsequently changes sign and the absolute control deviation exceeds a further deviation amount (see at least [Col. 4, lines 36-49]; “Detection of the peak of the error signal waveform is started when the absolute value of the error exceeds predetermined values ±BD which have been preset manually in advance. Unless the absolute value exceeds the predetermined values, peak detection is not performed, characteristic values are not calculated and PID constants are not changed,” and [Col. 8, lines 9-11]; “the error e(i) is decided as being set by the fact that it stays within a predetermined range for a predetermined time” and Fig.2, St the settling time corresponds to the optimization horizon a contains a time period where the control deviation exceeds +BD, the first deviation amount, changes signs, and exceeds the second deviation amount -BD, at peak 2), and
the associated optimization horizon corresponds to a time period between a time when the control deviation starts to exceed the predetermined first deviation amount and a time when the further deviation amount is exceeded after the sign change of the control deviation (see at least Fig.2, St the settling time corresponds to the optimization horizon a contains a time period where the control deviation exceeds +BD, the first deviation amount, changes signs, and exceeds the second deviation amount -BD, at peak 2).
Regarding claim 3 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein:
a second adaptation condition provides that an adaptation is performed when a control deviation is above a predetermined second deviation amount for more than a predetermined second time period (see at least [Col. 4, lines 36-49]; “Detection of the peak of the error signal waveform is started when the absolute value of the error exceeds predetermined values ±BD which have been preset manually in advance. Unless the absolute value exceeds the predetermined values, peak detection is not performed, characteristic values are not calculated and PID constants are not changed,” the PID constants, which correspond to the Applicant’s control parameters, are changed if the absolute value exceeds the predetermined value, this corresponds to Applicant’s adaptation condition during the settling time, which corresponds to Applicant’s horizon, and [Col. 8, lines 9-11]; “the error e(i) is decided as being set by the fact that it stays within a predetermined range for a predetermined time”), and
the optimization horizon for the second adaptation condition corresponds to a time period during which the control deviation exceeds the second deviation amount or the second time period (see at least Fig.2, St the settling time corresponds to the optimization horizon a contains a time period where the control deviation exceeds +BD, the first deviation amount, changes signs, and exceeds the second deviation amount -BD, at peak 2).
Regarding claim 10 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses a device for performing the method according to claim 1 (see at least [Col. 1, lines 6-14]; “This invention relates to a method and apparatus of automatically setting PID (proportional plus integral plus derivation) constants used for process control and more particularly to a method and apparatus for autotuning (automatic adjustment of constants) PID control suitable for automatically setting, on the basis of a control response from a process, PID constants which can rapidly settle the control response in accordance with a change in set point and a disturbance applied.”).
Regarding claim 11 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein a computer program product comprises instructions which, when executed by at least one data processing device, cause the data processing device to perform the method (see at least [Col. 3, lines 36-39]; “The PID controller generally designated by reference numeral 11 carries a microprocessor and it comprises a PID action 1 for performing a PID calculation”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20220365493 (hereinafter, “Veen”).
Regarding claim 4 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Takahashi does not disclose wherein within one or more time periods within the optimization horizon, each associated with an operating range, contribution shares of each of the control components are determined that define a degree of adaptation of the control parameters to be adapted.
Veen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein within one or more time periods within the optimization horizon, each associated with an operating range, contribution shares of each of the control components are determined that define a degree of adaptation of the control parameters to be adapted (see at least Fig. 1A, and [0044]; “the PID controller 101 may sum (using summing component 112), the control terms from the proportional control engine 104, the integral control engine 106, and the derivative control engine 110 to obtain a total parameter value u(t))…the total parameter value u(t) can be output to a vehicle control engine 114,” the individual equations for the control parameters as presented in Fig. 1A correspond to the contribution shares of each of the control components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the PID controller of Takahashi with the PID controller component equations of Veen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of adjusting a parameter of a vehicle based on said equations (see at least Veen; [0030]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-10081367 (hereinafter, “Mangette”).
Regarding claim 9 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Takashi does not disclose further comprising:
operating a traction control system,
wherein the control deviation indicates a difference between a target speed and an actual speed, or a difference between a specified target torque and an actual torque of a drive motor
Mangette, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
operating a traction control system (see at least [Abstract]; “Based on receiving, by a traction application executing on the vehicle control module of the vehicle: a traction speed control input to control the traction wheel of the vehicle”),
wherein the control deviation indicates a difference between a target speed and an actual speed, or a difference between a specified target torque and an actual torque of a drive motor (see at least [Col. 19, lines 29-46]; “The traction setpoint may be a traction speed setpoint ω.sub.4 defined by the Trx_Speed_Setting ω.sub.4, or the traction setpoint may be a traction setpoint τ.sub.1 that can be calculated based on the Trx_Speed_Setting and a current Trx_Speed of the vehicle. As one example and as known to those skilled in the prior art, a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller can be used that receives, as an input, a difference value between the Trx_Speed_Setting and the Trx_Speed and calculates, as output, the traction setpoint τ.sub.1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the PID controller of Takahashi with the traction system of Mangette. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing safe control and stability for the vehicle (see at least [Col. 16, lines 24-33]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The claim limitation of calculating a contribution for each of the control components of the PID controller, wherein the calculation is composed of an absolute sum of a quotient, formed over all time steps of a control cycle corresponding to the operating range, of an absolute value of a corresponding component for a time step and a sum of the absolute values of all control components, renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record is US-5043862 (hereinafter, “Takahashi”) in view of US-20220365493 (hereinafter, “Veen”), which discloses many of the required limitations of the claims.
Takahashi teaches a PID control method and controller for determining a control response from a processor, characteristic values representative of controllability and automatically deriving and setting PID constants from the determined characteristic values. Takahashi on the basis of a selective knowledge base and characteristic values, a unit derives new PID constants and sets them in a PID action. The process of Takahashi determines the proper control response based on control deviation and the control parameters; it would be obvious for this control response to take place in a technical system. Furthermore, Takahashi discloses changing the PID constants based on detection of an error exceeding a predetermined threshold for at least a predetermined time. Takahashi however is silent in regards to determining contribution shares of each of the PID controller components.
Veen teaches managing operations of a PID controller of a vehicle. Veen discloses determining an error between parameter setpoint and a current parameter value, said value is then used to determine the different control components of the controller. As can be seen in Fig. 1A, three different components are able to be calculated for the controller, the combination of which may be summed together to provide a vehicle control system which can adjust a parameter of the vehicle. These individual components calculated correspond to the contribution to the overall output of the PID controller. While Veen does not disclose dividing the individual component values by the sum, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that to determine a percentage of a contribution you would divide the individual value by the total value. However, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sum from all time steps of the control cycle of the optimization horizon attributable to a corresponding range. The calculation of Veen is merely done for one time period and does not disclose calculating a summation of the contributions throughout multiple time periods.
As shown above, many of the required limitations of the claims remain taught by Takashi in view of Veen; however, the combination is silent with regards to the limitations pointed out above. Examiner asserts that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combination in such a way to yield the invention as claimed therefore rendering the claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Optimized self-adaptive PID speed control for autonomous vehicles” teaches implementing adaptive PID control on vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/4/26
Prosecution Insights