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 action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/02/2025. Applicant amended claims 3, 17 and 20; and canceled claim 16. Claims 3, 13, 15 and 17-20 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/02/2025 obviate said objections – accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/02/2025 have been fully considered.
As to claim 3, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to claim 20, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that reference Imaseki does not disclose the condition of the engine speed being greater than the input shaft speed. Applicant further argues that Imaseki’s purpose is to match engine speed to CVT input shaft speed, not to determine whether sudden deceleration may occur due to an engagement abnormality as intended by the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Imaseki teaches: determine a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the input rotational speed is higher than an internal combustion engine rotational speed and a difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is greater than a third threshold value the internal combustion engine rotational speed being a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine, and does not determine a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is less than or equal to the third threshold value. (At step 228, the case may be determined wherein “engine speed I2 is lower than the CVT input shaft speed Vt.” ¶ 106. Then, “subsequently[] it is determined whether a difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt is equal to or larger than a threshold value Limit (Step 232). In a case where a difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt is smaller than the threshold value Limit (negative determination in Step 232), it is deemed that there is substantially no difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt and the control program 220 for integrated starter generator is terminated so as to perform the map for engaging clutch. In a case where a difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt is equal to or larger than the threshold value Limit (affirmative determination in Step 232), it is determined that the engine rotational frequency is too high for clutch engagement.” ¶ 107. See also FIG. 5.). Summarizing, Imaseki teaches that both the determination that an input rotational speed is higher than internal combustion engine rotational speed, and determining the relationship of a difference between said input rotational speed and said internal combustion engine rotational speed against a threshold to determine a state of an engagement device (clutch). Therefore, Imaseki teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim.
While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s argument that the purpose of Imaseki may differ from the overall purpose of the claimed invention, Examiner respectfully submits that Imaseki provides sufficient motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim, and Choi to arrive at the claim limitation at issue. Namely, with a reasonable expectation of success one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Imaseki provides the predictable result of identifying anomalous conditions related to clutch engagement, such as if “engine rotational frequency is too high for clutch engagement.” (Imaseki, ¶ 107.)
Accordingly, arriving at the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the cited prior art, especially Imaseki.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 3, 13, 15 and 17–19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiba et al. (US20180093660A1; “Koshiba”) in view of Nakajima (US20060046896A1; “Nakajima”), in view of Nagashima et al. (US20120108391A1; “Nagashima”), in view of Kim (US20190001963A1; “Kim”), in view of Choi (US20160146272A1; “Choi”) and in view of Iida et al. (US20160332636A1; “Iida”).
As to claim 3, Koshiba discloses a control device for a vehicle drive device, a control target for the control device being the vehicle drive device in which in a power transmission path connecting an input member drive-coupled to an internal combustion engine to an output member drive-coupled to wheels, a first engagement device that operates by hydraulic pressure, a rotating electrical machine, and a transmission are provided in this order from an internal combustion engine side, the first engagement device disposed between the internal combustion engine and the rotating electrical machine, transmitting power from one to the other (Integrated controller 10 analogizes to the broadest reasonable interpretation (from here on BRI) of a control device – see at least ¶ 41 and FIG. 1. First clutch CL1 analogizes to the BRI of a first engagement device – see at least ¶ 22 and FIG. 1. Continuing, see at least FIG. 1 which illustrates an input member connecting at one end an engine (ENG), connecting at the other end a clutch CL2, and connecting a motor MG (i.e., a rotating electrical machine) which is interposed between the foregoing. FIG. 1. further illustrates an output member connecting at one end the clutch CL2 and at the other end the transmission which connects to the wheels (FL and FR).), the control device comprising:
an engagement controller that controls a state of engagement of the first engagement device based on an engagement control instruction (Clutch controller 12 “carries out a first clutch control.” – see at least ¶ 48.);
a determining processor that determines a state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality when it is in an engaged state contrary to the disengagement instruction (“A command current value that controls the valve opening amount of each of the solenoid valves 111 and 112 (engagement state of each clutch CL1 and CL2) is read.” See at least ¶ 64 and FIG. 3. Continuing, to engage a clutch, a first clutch solenoid valve 111 supplies line pressure PL to the first clutch based on a valve opening amount; similarly, line pressure PL is drained from the first clutch in order to release (i.e., disengage) the first clutch. See at least ¶ 37. See also ¶ 49 which discloses how first clutch control is carried out based on control of the first clutch solenoid valve 111, using supplied line pressure PL. Continuing, an ON-failure state is a state of clutch in which the clutch “is fixed to the engaged state.” See at least ¶ 38. Finally, “the clutch failure determination unit 30 inputs the command current value to each solenoid valve 111 and 112, and determines the presence of an ON-failure when a state in which the command current value is an abnormality determination current value, which is set in advance and is below the normal command value.” See at least ¶ 63. See also ¶ 64 which indicates that the command current value is tied to “the valve opening amount of each of the solenoid valves 111 and 112.” See also ¶ 65 which discuss the abnormality determination current value, and FIG. 3 which illustrates the ON-Failure determination process. Summarizing, a command current value corresponds to either a disengagement or engagement instruction as this value affects the valve opening amount of the solenoid valve 111, in which said valve opening amount is directly tied towards the engagement or disengagement of the first engagement device. In the ON-failure determination process, a failure occurs when the first clutch remains engaged; thus, the command current value ostensibly analogizes to a disengagement instruction as an abnormality occurs when there’s a difference between the command current value and an abnormality determination current value—i.e., the clutch stays engaged despite a disengagement instruction),
wherein
when
the engagement control instruction is a disengagement instruction to bring the first engagement device into a disengaged state (See at least ¶¶ 37, 38, 49, 63–65 and associated discussion above.), and
when the state of the first engagement device is determined to be an engagement abnormality, the determining processor performs at least a second control that interrupts transmission of drive power between the rotating electrical machine and the output member (“When there is an ON-failure of the two clutches CL1 and CL2 … a clutch failure flag fCLFAIL is set and the steps proceed to Step S210.” See at least ¶ 90. “The driving force is stopped (engine output and motor output are stopped) in Step S210.” See at least ¶ 91. Summarizing, a control which interrupts transmission of drive power between the rotating electrical machine and the output member is performed. See also FIG. 6.); and
engagement control in which a first engagement control valve controls first hydraulic pressure supplied to a first engagement device (To engage a clutch, a first clutch solenoid valve 111 supplies line pressure PL to the first clutch based on a valve opening amount; similarly, line pressure PL is drained from the first clutch in order to release (i.e., disengage) the first clutch. See at least ¶ 37. See also ¶ 49 which discloses how first clutch control is carried out based on control of the first clutch solenoid valve 111, using supplied line pressure PL.).
Koshiba fails to explicitly disclose:
a hydraulic pressure information obtaining part that obtains hydraulic pressure information using a sensor indicating first hydraulic pressure supplied to the first engagement device; and
when the first hydraulic pressure indicated by the hydraulic pressure information is greater than a first threshold value, the determining processor determines that the state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is an engaged state in contrast to the disengagement instruction.
Nevertheless, Nakajima teaches:
a hydraulic pressure information obtaining part that obtains hydraulic pressure information using a sensor indicating first hydraulic pressure supplied to a first engagement device (Hydraulic pressure switch – see at least ¶ 70.); and
when a first hydraulic pressure indicated by the hydraulic pressure information is greater than a first threshold value, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an anomalous state (“Each clutch … is equipped with a hydraulic pressure switch … as fail detecting means for detecting the hydraulic pressure acting to this clutch …. The hydraulic pressure switch turns on (produces a Hi output) when the actual hydraulic pressure exceeds a threshold value and turns off (produces a Lo output) when the actual hydraulic pressure falls below the threshold value. The clutch having abnormality is detectable by judging whether or not the output of this hydraulic pressure switch (i.e. actual hydraulic pressure) agrees with a hydraulic pressure command value.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 70.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Koshiba to include the feature of: a hydraulic pressure information obtaining part that obtains hydraulic pressure information using a sensor indicating first hydraulic pressure supplied to a first engagement device; and when a first hydraulic pressure indicated by the hydraulic pressure information is greater than a first threshold value, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an abnormality state, as taught by Nakajima, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for identifying whether an engagement device is in an anomalous state. (See, e.g., Nakajima ¶ 70.)
The combination of Koshiba and Nakajima fails to explicitly disclose:
an acceleration information obtaining part that obtains acceleration information using a speed sensor indicating acceleration of a vehicle on which the vehicle drive device is provided; and
when an acceleration indicated by the acceleration information has a negative value smaller than a second threshold value, the determining processor determines that the state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is an engaged state in contrast to the disengagement instruction.
Nevertheless, Nagashima teaches:
an acceleration information obtaining part that obtains acceleration information using a speed sensor indicating acceleration of a vehicle on which the vehicle drive device is provided (Back-and-forth acceleration sensor 24 – see at least ¶ 50 and FIG. 1.); and
when an acceleration indicated by the acceleration information has a negative value smaller than a threshold value, a determining processor determines that an engagement device is in an anomalous state (“[In a gear ratio abnormality judgment process,] [a]t step S4, a judgment is made as to whether or not a magnitude of the deceleration is a predetermined value d1 or greater. If YES (the magnitude of the deceleration is the predetermined value d1 or greater), the routine proceeds to step S5 [i.e., the abnormality judgment process continues].” See at least ¶ 100 and FIG. 11. See also ¶ 32 which clarifies that the frictional engagement elements in the automatic transmission AT may comprise one or more “clutch[es].” See also ¶¶ 90–91 which set out that a gear ratio abnormality is tied to a frictional engagement element sticking, adhering or locking.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba and Nakajima with the features of: an acceleration information obtaining part that obtains acceleration information using a speed sensor indicating acceleration of a vehicle on which the vehicle drive device is provided; and when an acceleration indicated by the acceleration information has a negative value smaller than a threshold value, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an abnormality state, as taught by Nagashima, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for identifying whether an engagement device is in an anomalous state. (See, e.g., Nagashima, ¶¶ 91 and 100.)
Furthermore, while Nagashima may apply its detection method to an engagement device disposed in a different location than what is described by the structure of Koshiba and the claimed invention, Nagashima’s detection method nevertheless can with a reasonable expectation of success apply to Koshiba’s first clutch CL1 as the two clutches are similar in structure and perform similar functions. In sum, Nagashima’s detection method is applicable for troubleshooting an engagement device (clutch) CL1 and would be useful for further aiding in determining that an engagement device (clutch) CL1 is acting anomalously. Such a modification would constitute a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as lined out above. In fact, both Koshiba and Nagashima consider that a “stuck” state of a clutch is an anomalous behavior, giving further motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Koshiba and Nagashima are in the same field of endeavor of identifying anomalous clutch states.
Finally, the incorporation of Nagashima’s detection method into Koshiba would have a predictable level of success in Koshiba as such would merely constitute adding Nagashima’s measurement of acceleration to Koshiba’s anomaly determination processing. Accordingly, such a modification would constitute a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as lined out above.
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, and Nagashima fails to explicitly disclose when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state in which drive power is transmitted, the input rotational speed being a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine, the determining processor determines that the state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is an engaged state in contrast to the disengagement instruction.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state in which drive power is transmitted, the input rotational speed being a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an anomalous state (“The controller 165 may … diagnose a failure of the clutch 147 based on the … rotational speed of the motor detected by the first rotational speed detector.” See at least ¶ 58. “The controller 164 may also be configured to determine a target rotational speed of the motor that corresponds to the target speed of the vehicle while the vehicle is being driven, determine a rotational speed range that corresponds to the determined target rotational speed, and determine that opening of the clutch has failed when the detected rotational speed is beyond the determined rotational speed range.” See at least ¶ 60.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, and Nagashima with the feature of: when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state in which drive power is transmitted, the input rotational speed being a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an anomalous state, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for identifying whether an engagement device is in an anomalous state. (See, e.g., Kim, ¶ 60.)
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim and Choi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second control operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of the first engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality.
Nevertheless, Iida teaches: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality (“A control device being configured to, when having detected that the vehicle is in the travelling state and that the clutch actuator is abnormal by use of the travelling state detection sensor and the CA abnormality detection sensor, control the operation of the shift actuator and cause the selected gear stage in the transmission to be shifted into neutral.” Abstract.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state. Iida teaches: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim and Choi with the feature of: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality, as taught by Iida, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for addressing engagement abnormalities. (See Iida, Abstract.) As a matter of fact, Koshiba states that to address engagement abnormalities, “the driving force is stopped (engine output and motor output are stopped) in Step S210.” (See at least ¶ 91.) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such a state as mirroring a neutral state – Iida merely provides the explicit teaching of shifting the transmission into neutral upon detection of an engagement abnormality.
As to claim 13, the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first control includes first disengagement control that allows the engagement controller to perform control again to bring the first engagement device into a disengaged state.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: wherein the first control includes first disengagement control that allows the engagement controller to perform control again to bring the first engagement device into a disengaged state (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches performing first disengagement control to bring a first engagement device into a disengaged state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: wherein the first control includes first disengagement control that allows the engagement controller to perform control again to bring the first engagement device into a disengaged state, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
As to claim 15, the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first control includes third disengagement control that allows the engagement controller to restart.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: wherein the first control includes third disengagement control that allows the engagement controller to restart (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches wherein the first control includes third disengagement control that allows the engagement control part to restart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: wherein the first control includes third disengagement control that allows the engagement control part to restart, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
As to claim 17, Koshiba discloses:
the transmission includes one or more second engagement devices that are brought into an engaged state when a shift speed is formed (Second clutch CL2 – see at least ¶ 22 and Fig. 1. Continuing, “an HEV traveling mode [is] in which both clutches CL1 and CL2 are engaged, and traveling is carried out by the drive force of the engine Eng and the motor MG. In addition, … an EV mode [is] in which the first clutch CL1 is released and the second clutch CL2 is engaged, and traveling is carried out by the drive force of only the motor MG.” That is, the second engagement device CL2 is brought into an engaged state when a shift speed is formed (i.e., an HEV traveling mode is carried out). See at least ¶ 24.), and
a second engagement control valve which controls second hydraulic pressure supplied to the second engagement devices (To engage a clutch, a second clutch solenoid valve 112 supplies line pressure PL to the second clutch based on a valve opening amount; similarly, line pressure PL is drained from the second clutch in order to release (i.e., disengage) the second clutch. See at least ¶ 37. See also ¶ 50 which discloses how first clutch control is carried out based on control of the first clutch solenoid valve 111, using supplied line pressure PL.).
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima and Kim fails to explicitly disclose the neutral control includes forced neutral control that allows a second engagement control valve to operate such that the second engagement devices are forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: control which forcefully brings a second engagement device into a disengaged state (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40. Examiner notes that said clutch may be a second clutch, as the system contains a first and a second clutch – see at least ¶ 3.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction; and a second engagement control valve which controls second hydraulic pressure supplied to the second engagement devices. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches control which forcefully brings a second engagement device into a disengaged state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: control which forcefully brings a second engagement device into a disengaged state, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
As to claim 18, Koshiba discloses: a second engagement device that connects or disconnects transmission of drive power between the rotating electrical machine and the transmission (“[A] second clutch CL2 that is able to connect and disconnect the drive transmission is provided between the motor MG and the continuously variable transmission CVT.” See at least ¶ 24 & FIG. 1.).
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second control includes engagement disengagement control that brings an engagement device into a disengaged state.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: wherein the second control includes engagement disengagement control that brings an engagement device into a disengaged state (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction; and a second engagement control valve which controls second hydraulic pressure supplied to the second engagement devices. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches wherein the second control includes engagement disengagement control that brings an engagement device into a disengaged state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: wherein the second control includes engagement disengagement control that brings an engagement device into a disengaged state, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
As to claim 19, Koshiba discloses: a third engagement control valve which brings a second disengagement device into a disengaged state, the third engagement control valve controlling third hydraulic pressure supplied to the second engagement device (“[S]econd clutch CL2 is … controlled to be in … disengagement with a stroke control according to a second clutch hydraulic pressure that is supplied from the hydraulic pressure control circuit 110.” See at least ¶ 29 and FIG. 1. “The hydraulic pressure control circuit 110 comprises … a second clutch solenoid valve 112 [i.e., third engagement control valve].” See at least ¶ 32 and FIG. 1.).
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim fails to explicitly disclose forced engagement disengagement control such that an engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: forced engagement disengagement control such that an engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction; and a second engagement control valve which controls second hydraulic pressure supplied to the second engagement devices. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches forced engagement disengagement control such that an engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: forced engagement disengagement control such that an engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
Claim 20 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiba in view of Nakajima, in view of Nagashima, in view of Kim, in view of Choi, in view of Iida and in view of Imaseki et al. (US20100324762A1; “Imaseki.”)
As to claim 20, Koshiba discloses a control device for a vehicle drive device, a control target for the control device being the vehicle drive device in which in a power transmission path connecting an input member drive-coupled to an internal combustion engine to an output member drive-coupled to wheels, a first engagement device that operates by hydraulic pressure, a rotating electrical machine, and a transmission are provided in this order from an internal combustion engine side, the first engagement device disposed between the internal combustion engine and the rotating electrical machine, transmitting power from one to the other (Integrated controller 10 analogizes to the broadest reasonable interpretation (from here on BRI) of a control device – see at least ¶ 41 and FIG. 1. First clutch CL1 analogizes to the BRI of a first engagement device – see at least ¶ 22 and FIG. 1. Continuing, see at least FIG. 1 which illustrates an input member connecting at one end an engine (ENG), connecting at the other end a clutch CL2, and connecting a motor MG (i.e., a rotating electrical machine) which is interposed between the foregoing. FIG. 1. further illustrates an output member connecting at one end the clutch CL2 and at the other end the transmission which connects to the wheels (FL and FR).), the control device comprising:
an engagement controller that controls a state of engagement of the first engagement device based on an engagement control instruction (Clutch controller 12 “carries out a first clutch control.” – see at least ¶ 48.);
a determining processor that determines a state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality when it is in an engaged state contrary to the disengagement instruction (“A command current value that controls the valve opening amount of each of the solenoid valves 111 and 112 (engagement state of each clutch CL1 and CL2) is read.” See at least ¶ 64 and FIG. 3. Continuing, to engage a clutch, a first clutch solenoid valve 111 supplies line pressure PL to the first clutch based on a valve opening amount; similarly, line pressure PL is drained from the first clutch in order to release (i.e., disengage) the first clutch. See at least ¶ 37. See also ¶ 49 which discloses how first clutch control is carried out based on control of the first clutch solenoid valve 111, using supplied line pressure PL. Continuing, an ON-failure state is a state of clutch in which the clutch “is fixed to the engaged state.” See at least ¶ 38. Finally, “the clutch failure determination unit 30 inputs the command current value to each solenoid valve 111 and 112, and determines the presence of an ON-failure when a state in which the command current value is an abnormality determination current value, which is set in advance and is below the normal command value.” See at least ¶ 63. See also ¶ 64 which indicates that the command current value is tied to “the valve opening amount of each of the solenoid valves 111 and 112.” See also ¶ 65 which discuss the abnormality determination current value, and FIG. 3 which illustrates the ON-Failure determination process. Summarizing, a command current value corresponds to either a disengagement or engagement instruction as this value affects the valve opening amount of the solenoid valve 111, in which said valve opening amount is directly tied towards the engagement or disengagement of the first engagement device. In the ON-failure determination process, a failure occurs when the first clutch remains engaged; thus, the command current value ostensibly analogizes to a disengagement instruction as an abnormality occurs when there’s a difference between the command current value and an abnormality determination current value—i.e., the clutch stays engaged despite a disengagement instruction),
wherein
when
the engagement control instruction is a disengagement instruction to bring the first engagement device into a disengaged state (See at least ¶¶ 37, 38, 49, 63–65 and associated discussion above.), and
when the state of the first engagement device is determined to be an engagement abnormality, the determining processor performs at least a second control that interrupts transmission of drive power between the rotating electrical machine and the output member (“When there is an ON-failure of the two clutches CL1 and CL2 … a clutch failure flag fCLFAIL is set and the steps proceed to Step S210.” See at least ¶ 90. “The driving force is stopped (engine output and motor output are stopped) in Step S210.” See at least ¶ 91. Summarizing, a control which interrupts transmission of drive power between the rotating electrical machine and the output member is performed. See also FIG. 6.); and
engagement control in which a first engagement control valve controls first hydraulic pressure supplied to a first engagement device (To engage a clutch, a first clutch solenoid valve 111 supplies line pressure PL to the first clutch based on a valve opening amount; similarly, line pressure PL is drained from the first clutch in order to release (i.e., disengage) the first clutch. See at least ¶ 37. See also ¶ 49 which discloses how first clutch control is carried out based on control of the first clutch solenoid valve 111, using supplied line pressure PL.).
Koshiba fails to explicitly disclose:
a hydraulic pressure information obtaining part that obtains hydraulic pressure information using a sensor indicating first hydraulic pressure supplied to the first engagement device; and
when the first hydraulic pressure indicated by the hydraulic pressure information is greater than a first threshold value, the determining processor determines that the state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is an engaged state in contrast to the disengagement instruction.
Nevertheless, Nakajima teaches:
a hydraulic pressure information obtaining part that obtains hydraulic pressure information using a sensor indicating first hydraulic pressure supplied to a first engagement device (Hydraulic pressure switch – see at least ¶ 70.); and
when a first hydraulic pressure indicated by the hydraulic pressure information is greater than a first threshold value, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an anomalous state (“Each clutch … is equipped with a hydraulic pressure switch … as fail detecting means for detecting the hydraulic pressure acting to this clutch …. The hydraulic pressure switch turns on (produces a Hi output) when the actual hydraulic pressure exceeds a threshold value and turns off (produces a Lo output) when the actual hydraulic pressure falls below the threshold value. The clutch having abnormality is detectable by judging whether or not the output of this hydraulic pressure switch (i.e. actual hydraulic pressure) agrees with a hydraulic pressure command value.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 70.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Koshiba to include the feature of: a hydraulic pressure information obtaining part that obtains hydraulic pressure information using a sensor indicating first hydraulic pressure supplied to a first engagement device; and when a first hydraulic pressure indicated by the hydraulic pressure information is greater than a first threshold value, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an abnormality state, as taught by Nakajima, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for identifying whether an engagement device is in an anomalous state. (See, e.g., Nakajima ¶ 70.)
The combination of Koshiba and Nakajima fails to explicitly disclose:
an acceleration information obtaining part that obtains acceleration information using a speed sensor indicating acceleration of a vehicle on which the vehicle drive device is provided; and
when an acceleration indicated by the acceleration information has a negative value smaller than a second threshold value, the determining processor determines that the state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is an engaged state in contrast to the disengagement instruction.
Nevertheless, Nagashima teaches:
an acceleration information obtaining part that obtains acceleration information using a speed sensor indicating acceleration of a vehicle on which the vehicle drive device is provided (Back-and-forth acceleration sensor 24 – see at least ¶ 50 and FIG. 1.); and
when an acceleration indicated by the acceleration information has a negative value smaller than a threshold value, a determining processor determines that an engagement device is in an anomalous state (“[In a gear ratio abnormality judgment process,] [a]t step S4, a judgment is made as to whether or not a magnitude of the deceleration is a predetermined value d1 or greater. If YES (the magnitude of the deceleration is the predetermined value d1 or greater), the routine proceeds to step S5 [i.e., the abnormality judgment process continues].” See at least ¶ 100 and FIG. 11. See also ¶ 32 which clarifies that the frictional engagement elements in the automatic transmission AT may comprise one or more “clutch[es].” See also ¶¶ 90–91 which set out that a gear ratio abnormality is tied to a frictional engagement element sticking, adhering or locking.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba and Nakajima with the features of: an acceleration information obtaining part that obtains acceleration information using a speed sensor indicating acceleration of a vehicle on which the vehicle drive device is provided; and when an acceleration indicated by the acceleration information has a negative value smaller than a threshold value, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an abnormality state, as taught by Nagashima, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for identifying whether an engagement device is in an anomalous state. (See, e.g., Nagashima, ¶¶ 91 and 100.)
Furthermore, while Nagashima may apply its detection method to an engagement device disposed in a different location than what is described by the structure of Koshiba and the claimed invention, Nagashima’s detection method nevertheless can with a reasonable expectation of success apply to Koshiba’s first clutch CL1 as the two clutches are similar in structure and perform similar functions. In sum, Nagashima’s detection method is applicable for troubleshooting an engagement device (clutch) CL1 and would be useful for further aiding in determining that an engagement device (clutch) CL1 is acting anomalously. Such a modification would constitute a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as lined out above. In fact, both Koshiba and Nagashima consider that a “stuck” state of a clutch is an anomalous behavior, giving further motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Koshiba and Nagashima are in the same field of endeavor of identifying anomalous clutch states.
Finally, the incorporation of Nagashima’s detection method into Koshiba would have a predictable level of success in Koshiba as such would merely constitute adding Nagashima’s measurement of acceleration to Koshiba’s anomaly determination processing. Accordingly, such a modification would constitute a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as lined out above.
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, and Nagashima fails to explicitly disclose when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state in which drive power is transmitted, the input rotational speed being a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine, the determining processor determines that the state of the first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is an engaged state in contrast to the disengagement instruction.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state in which drive power is transmitted, the input rotational speed being a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an anomalous state (“The controller 165 may … diagnose a failure of the clutch 147 based on the … rotational speed of the motor detected by the first rotational speed detector.” See at least ¶ 58. “The controller 164 may also be configured to determine a target rotational speed of the motor that corresponds to the target speed of the vehicle while the vehicle is being driven, determine a rotational speed range that corresponds to the determined target rotational speed, and determine that opening of the clutch has failed when the detected rotational speed is beyond the determined rotational speed range.” See at least ¶ 60.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, and Nagashima with the feature of: when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state in which drive power is transmitted, the input rotational speed being a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine, a determining processor determines that the first engagement device is in an anomalous state, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for identifying whether an engagement device is in an anomalous state. (See, e.g., Kim, ¶ 60.)
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
Nevertheless, Choi teaches: wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state (“The state determination unit 100 may determine whether a clutch of the DCT is stuck. When a clutch of the DCT is stuck, the control unit 200 may perform an operation of unsticking the clutch.” See at least ¶ 40.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, and Kim with the feature of: wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “fixing a mechanical stuck problem occurring in a clutch.” (Choi, ¶ 2.) In this way, the incorporation of Choi would analogize to a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield the predictable advantages as penned above.
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim and Choi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second control operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of the first engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality.
Nevertheless, Iiida teaches: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality (“A control device being configured to, when having detected that the vehicle is in the travelling state and that the clutch actuator is abnormal by use of the travelling state detection sensor and the CA abnormality detection sensor, control the operation of the shift actuator and cause the selected gear stage in the transmission to be shifted into neutral.” Abstract.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches wherein the first control includes second disengagement control in which the first engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state. Iida teaches: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim and Choi with the feature of: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality, as taught by Iida, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for addressing engagement abnormalities. (See Iida, Abstract.) As a matter of fact, Koshiba states that to address engagement abnormalities, “the driving force is stopped (engine output and motor output are stopped) in Step S210.” (See at least ¶ 91.) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such a state as mirroring a neutral state – Iida merely provides the explicit teaching of shifting the transmission into neutral upon detection of an engagement abnormality.
The combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim, Choi and Iida fails to explicitly disclose:
determines a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the input rotational speed is higher than an internal combustion engine rotational speed and a difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is greater than a third threshold value, the internal combustion engine rotational speed being a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine, and
does not determine a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is less than or equal to the third threshold value.
Nevertheless, Imaseki teaches wherein a determining processor:
determines a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the input rotational speed is higher than an internal combustion engine rotational speed and a difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is greater than a third threshold value, the internal combustion engine rotational speed being a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine (At step 228, the case may be determined wherein “engine speed I2 is lower than the CVT input shaft speed Vt.” ¶ 106. Then, “subsequently[] it is determined whether a difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt is equal to or larger than a threshold value Limit (Step 232). In a case where a difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt is smaller than the threshold value Limit (negative determination in Step 232), it is deemed that there is substantially no difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt and the control program 220 for integrated starter generator is terminated so as to perform the map for engaging clutch. In a case where a difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt is equal to or larger than the threshold value Limit (affirmative determination in Step 232), it is determined that the engine rotational frequency is too high for clutch engagement.” ¶ 107. See also FIG. 5.), and
does not determine a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is less than or equal to the third threshold value (When “there is substantially no difference between the engine speed I2 and the CVT input shaft speed Vt,” the control flow does not perform a determination of the state of the first engagement device. See at least ¶ 107 and FIG. 5.).
Koshiba discloses determining that a state of a first engagement device is an engagement abnormality where the state of the first engagement device is in an engaged state in contrast to a disengagement instruction; and a second engagement control valve which controls second hydraulic pressure supplied to the second engagement devices. Nakajima teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when a first hydraulic pressure is greater than a first threshold value. Nagashima teaches an engagement device is in an abnormal state when an acceleration has a negative value smaller than a threshold value. Kim teaches a first engagement device is in an abnormal state when an input rotational speed is greater than zero and a state of the transmission is a drive transmission state. Choi teaches forced engagement disengagement control such that an engagement device is forcefully brought into a disengaged state. Iida teaches: a control which operates to shift the transmission to neutral by normal operation of the transmission in direct response to the determination that the state of an engagement device is determined to be the engagement abnormality. Imaseki teaches determining a state of a first engagement device based on the input rotational speed is higher than an internal combustion engine rotational speed by a certain threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Koshiba, Nakajima, Nagashima, Kim, Choi and Iida with the features of: wherein a determining processor: determines a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the input rotational speed is higher than an internal combustion engine rotational speed and a difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is greater than a third threshold value, the internal combustion engine rotational speed being a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine; and does not determine a state of the first engagement device by the determining processor when the difference between the input rotational speed and the internal combustion engine rotational speed is less than or equal to the third threshold value, as taught by Imaseki, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for identifying anomalous conditions related to clutch engagement, such as if “engine rotational frequency is too high for clutch engagement.” (Imaseki, ¶ 107.)
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668