DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims dated 07/04/2025 are being examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/04/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that elements are conventionally introduced by the article “a” or “an” upon first recitation and thereafter referred to using the article “the”. Numerous places in the application do not follow this convention. Applicant in encouraged to review and amend all claims accordingly to provide proper antecedent basis and enhance clarity. Appropriate correction is required for claim limitations that do not follow this convention.
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 1-17 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 1, claim 1 recites in various locations “a dynamical physical system”, “the physical system”, and “the system”. It is not clear if these limitations are referring to the same system or not. For examination purposes, the latter two limitations are intended to refer to the “dynamical physical system”. The dependent claims reciting any of these 3 limitations will need to be changed depending on the change to claim 1 (i.e., claim 3 reciting “the dynamic system” should be changed to “the dynamical physical system”).
Claim 1 recites “the Algebraic Riccati Equation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this equation is intended to refer to Equation 25 of Applicant’s specification disclosing what the Algebraic Riccati Equation is.
Claims 2-9 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites in various locations “a dynamical physical system”, “the physical system”, “the system”, and “the dynamic system”. It is not clear if these limitations are referring to the same system or not. For examination purposes, the latter three limitations are intended to refer to the “dynamical physical system”. The dependent claims reciting any of these 3 limitations will need to be changed depending on the change to claim 1 (i.e., claim 11 reciting “the dynamic system” should be changed to “the dynamical physical system”).
Claim 1 recites “the Algebraic Riccati Equation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this equation is intended to refer to Equation 25 of Applicant’s specification disclosing what the Algebraic Riccati Equation is.
Claims 11-17 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 10.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Claim 1) A method for calibrating the feedback gains K of an LQI controller implemented in an electronic control unit operatively connected for controlling operation of a physical electric or electro-mechanical device of a dynamic physical system, in particular a vehicle powertrain,
wherein the LQI controller is based on an augmented State Space model having the following form:
x
˙
ε
=
A
a
u
g
x
+
B
a
u
g
u
+
0
1
r
e
f
y
=
C
a
u
g
x
ε
A
a
u
g
=
A
0
-
C
0
,
B
a
u
g
=
B
0
T
,
C
a
u
g
=
C
0
wherein the augmented State Space model is based on the following State Space model representing the physical system:
x
˙
=
A
x
+
B
u
y
=
C
x
wherein
x
is control system state vector,
ε
is control system tracking error,
u
is control system input,
r
e
f
is control system target references value,
y
is control system output, and A, B, C represent matrices derived from a mathematical model of the dynamic physical system,
wherein the method of calibrating the LQI controller comprises:
obtaining values of various physical parameters of the dynamic physical system;
inserting the obtained values of the physical parameters into predetermined equations for calculating numerical values of the individual terms of a P matrix, wherein the P matrix is the solution to the Algebraic Riccati equation, and wherein said equations include the physical parameters of the system; and
calculating new feedback gains for the LQI controller based on the matrix equation
K
=
r
-
1
B
a
u
g
T
P
, based on an arbitrarily chosen positive value of 𝑟, wherein the terms of the K matrix corresponds to the feedback gains.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mathematical concepts” – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses mathematical equations and calculations.
Specifically, the limitation: “inserting the obtained values of the physical parameters into predetermined equations for calculating numerical values of the individual terms of a P matrix, wherein the P matrix is the solution to the Algebraic Riccati equation, and wherein said equations include the physical parameters of the system” in the context of this claim encompasses mathematical operations. Inserting numerical values into predetermined equations is evaluating a mathematical expression (to obtain the claimed P matrix).
The limitation: “calculating new feedback gains for the LQI controller based on the matrix equation
K
=
r
-
1
B
a
u
g
T
P
, based on an arbitrarily chosen positive value of 𝑟, wherein the terms of the K matrix corresponds to the feedback gains” in the context of this claim encompasses mathematical calculations to solve for K. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding, the additional limitations of “the LQI controller” and being implemented by “an electronic control unit”, the LQI controller and electronic control unit merely acts as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements do not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional limitations of “obtaining values of various physical parameters of the dynamic physical system”, amounts to mere data gathering for use in the “inserting…” and “calculating…” steps. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements of limiting the invention to a “vehicle powertrain” do not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. The aforementioned limitations serve to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a vehicular environment, which otherwise could be applied to other environments. Applicant’s disclosure indicated that the claimed calibration method may be applied to numerous devices (see at least [0004] copied below)
[0004] Moreover, even if the method and system according to the disclosure will be described primarily in relation to a hybrid electric powertrain of a car, the method and system are not restricted to this particular implementation, but may alternatively be used or installed or implemented in many other types of implementations having a controllable device, such as an electric machine, an actuator, a power generator, or the like.
Such disclosure demonstrates that the recited mathematical calculations are not limited to a particular technological implementation, but instead may be performed in various technological environments. It has been held that limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of an LQI and electronic control unit in the claim amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, it has been determined that “obtaining…” is conventional as such limitation merely consists of data gathering and/or data transmitting which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (further describing mathematical concepts for used to calculate above matrices), well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (further describing how data is obtained and further describing the field of use, i.e., describing that the system is a vehicle system), that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 10 substantially recite the same limitations as the representative independent method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above. Likewise, dependent claims 11-17 are rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above for the dependent claims of the method claim 1.
The Examiner does not find that the current claims set forth the requisite details of an alleged technological improvement. As discussed above, the steps to calibrate feedback gains are mathematical concepts/principles, and “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, is not a patentable application of that principle” (See MPEP 2106.04(d); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). Here, the Applicant proposes a calibrating that requires less processing power due to simplified and/or omission of calculations ([0012]) compared to the prior art, but this purported improvement, however, relates to the abstract idea. For example, no information is claimed as to how/if the new feedback gains are used that shows the abstract idea (calibration of feedback gains) as being integrated into a practical application. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). Additionally, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b), set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically, in the field of vehicle powertrains, “obtaining values of various physical parameters of the dynamic physical system; inserting the obtained values of the physical parameters into predetermined equations for calculating numerical values of the individual terms of a P matrix, wherein the P matrix is the solution to the Algebraic Riccati equation, and wherein said equations include the physical parameters of the system”. Independent claim 10 is similarly potentially allowable for the same reasons. The dependent claims are potentially allowable based on their dependence to the independent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble of claim 1 requires an LQI controller implemented in an electronic control unit operatively connected for controlling operation of a physical electric or electro-mechanical device of a dynamic physical system, in particular a vehicle powertrain. LQI controllers for controlling operation of a physical electric or electro-mechanical device of a dynamic physical system are well-known in the art, and as supported by Peng et al. (DE-102020126490-A1), disclosing use of a linear-quadratic integrator controller set up such that the control behavior can be optimized at least with regard to the control dynamics of the control circuit and the energy consumption of the electric drive.
The claim further requires the LQI controller to be based on an augmented State Space model having the following form:
x
˙
ε
=
A
a
u
g
x
+
B
a
u
g
u
+
0
1
r
e
f
y
=
C
a
u
g
x
ε
A
a
u
g
=
A
0
-
C
0
,
B
a
u
g
=
B
0
T
,
C
a
u
g
=
C
0
wherein the augmented State Space model is based on the following State Space model representing the physical system:
x
˙
=
A
x
+
B
u
y
=
C
x
wherein
x
is control system state vector,
ε
is control system tracking error,
u
is control system input,
r
e
f
is control system target references value,
y
is control system output, and A, B, C represent matrices derived from a mathematical model of the dynamic physical system.
The prior arts also disclose that the above presented LQI control equations are standard. For example, Gonzales et al. (Sliding Mode Controller Based on a Linear Quadratic Integral Regulator Surface for Power Control on a Dual Active Bridge Converter) page 3 discloses the following controller design:
PNG
media_image1.png
478
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
807
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Excerpt from Page 3 of Gonzales above]
As shown above, Equations (5)-(9) of Gonzales read on the claimed augmented State Space model of the claimed LQI controller.
The claim lastly requires obtaining values of various physical parameters of the dynamic physical system; inserting the obtained values of the physical parameters into predetermined equations for calculating numerical values of the individual terms of a P matrix, wherein the P matrix is the solution to the Algebraic Riccati equation, and wherein said equations include the physical parameters of the system; and calculating new feedback gains for the LQI controller based on the matrix equation
K
=
r
-
1
B
a
u
g
T
P
, based on an arbitrarily chosen positive value of 𝑟, wherein the terms of the K matrix corresponds to the feedback gains.
Gonzales calculates the feedback gains of the LQI controller by inserting numerical values into A and B matrices to solve for the Riccati equation (11) of Gonzales to obtain the P matrix, and then calculate the numerical values of the K matrix as per Equation (12) of Gonzales. The prior art does not teach predetermined parameter-based equations for directly calculating elements of the P matrix. There is no disclosure of inserting the obtained values of the physical parameters into predetermined equations for calculating numerical values of the individual terms of a P matrix, wherein the P matrix is the solution to the Algebraic Riccati equation, and wherein said equations include the physical parameters of the system.
Accordingly, as per Applicant’s specification the improvement from the prior art lies in how the new feedback gains are calculated, allowing a standard LQI controller to be calibrated with less processing power by omitting matrix calculations as the obtained values of the parameters may instead be directly inserted into equations for calculating the terms for the P matrix.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peng et al. (DE-102020126490-A1), disclosing use of a linear-quadratic integrator controller set up such that the control behavior can be optimized at least with regard to the control dynamics of the control circuit and the energy consumption of the electric drive
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights