DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in reply to the request for continued examination (RCE), filed 22 September 2025 and amendment response filed 20 August 2025, which was in reply to the final action, dated 20 June 2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to RCE and Amendment
Claims 1-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 18 and 20 have been amended and claims 14 and 17 have been canceled.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (pgs. 4-27, Action), applicant’s amendments necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 in view of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth; claim 2 in view of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Maguire; claims 6, 10 and 16 and 17 in view of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan; claim 7 in view of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth, Horgan and Harada; and claims 18-20 in view of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan, as discussed below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0011630 to Takahashi in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0053553 to Akanda et al. (hereafter Akanda) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2003/0140896 to Roth et al. (hereafter Roth).
As per claim 1, Takahashi discloses [a] method for operating a modular hybrid transmission (MHT) of a hybrid vehicle, the method (see at least Takahashi, Abstract; [0012]; [0034] disclosing that FIG. 2 shows, a hybrid vehicle 100 according to the embodiment includes the engine 1, the clutch 2, a manual transmission 3, the motor 4, and an ECU 30. Further, the vehicle control device 1-1 according to the embodiment includes the engine 1, the motor 4, the clutch 2, and the ECU 3) comprising:
determining an engine torque of an engine of the hybrid vehicle (see at least Takahashi, [0044] torque acting on the drive wheels 8 <interpreted as "torque of an engine">. And further that the ECU 30 can cause the motor 4 to output any of the positive torque or the negative torque. The ECU 30 can control brake torque due to a power generation load of the motor 4 by adjusting, for example, the power generation amount of the motor 4; [0051]); ... (1) ... , ... (2);
at one or more control modules (see at least Takahashi, [0043] disclosing ECU 30 ),
calculating an upper torque bound and a lower torque bound of a feedback controller based on a feedforward (FF) engine torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0059]; [0082] disclosing that when the MG torque is feedback controlled to realize target deceleration based on the braking operation amount, the reduction of the vehicle acceleration 102 caused by the engagement of the clutch 2 can be suppressed. At the time, when the assist upper limit torque Ts at the time of braking is made to upper limit torque of the MG torque, it becomes possible to reduce the electric power consumption at the time of braking, to realize the intention of deceleration of the driver at an early timing, and the like. When the MG assist is executed at step S140, the control flow is finished),
generated by sign-flipping the determined engine torque, and a pre-defined torque threshold (see at least Takahashi, [0052] disclosing that the cranking start torque is a lower limit of the clutch torque at which the cranking of the engine 1 becomes possible. Even if the clutch 2 is engaged, when the clutch torque of the clutch 2 is less than the cranking start torque, the engine 1 remains stopped; [0059] disclosing that the assist torque is output to the motor 4 according to the clutch torque when a gear shift stage for hybrid travel is selected during the EV travel and the clutch 2 is engaged. A range, in which the assist torque is increased, is determined to the clutch torque, and the assist upper limit torque which is an upper limit of the range is based on the cranking start torque. When the clutch torque has reached predetermined assist upper limit torque, the assist torque of the motor 4 is not increased more than the predetermined assist upper limit torque; [0082]), ... (3) ... and
constraining operation of the electric motor via the feedback controller based on the upper and lower torque bounds (see at least Takahashi, [0052]);
wherein the upper torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value plus the pre-defined torque threshold, and the lower torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value minus the pre-defined torque threshold (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]). But Takahashi does not explicitly teach the following limitations disclosed in Akanda:
(1) calculating a converter loss term representing an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque (see at least Akanda, [0030] disclosing that a desired motor torque is modified by the controller to cancel the natural change in driveline acceleration caused by closing the clutch and coupling the engine with the driveline. Disturbance cancellation may be accomplished by manipulating a single signal, such as motor torque while considering engine and clutch torque as well as road disturbance as feedforward signals, or multiple signals, such as motor, clutch, and engine torque; [0041] disclosing that T.sub.c is a clutch torque; {dot over (θ)}.sub.e is a derivative of engine rotational angle; {dot over (θ)}.sub.m is a derivative of motor rotational angle; μ is an equivalent coefficient of clutch friction; [0079] disclosing that with regard to the preceding equation, two feedforward gain matrices are obtained: one for the slipping phase and one for the sticking phase. In practice, estimates of these disturbances may be the only available data; nevertheless, this information may be used to obtain feedforward gains. Then inaccuracy of the estimates can be compensated by the Kalman Observer and LQR feedback. A negative feedback gain K.sub.fb (transmitted as delta-command feedback signal dU.sub.fb), which is derived from engine speed ω.sub.e and motor speed feedback ω.sub.m-fb via a Kalman filter 208 as signals dx.sub.1, dx.sub.2, . . . dx.sub.6, is also input to the summation selector 204. Summation selector 204 outputs the incremental control signal dU to the driveline plant model 206. A “feedforward signal” may refer to a command signal generated by a supervisory controller and modified to compensate for anticipated response. A “feedforward gain” matrix, on the other hand, may refer to a signal generated by a supervisory controller and multiplied by state estimates to yield the feedforward signa ); and
(3) the feedback controller controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0041]; [0081] disclosing that at input-output block 301, the methods 300 and 400 of FIGS. 4 and 5 provide control logic for a supervisory HOS controller to determine an engine torque command 302, an K0 clutch torque command 304, a traction motor torque command 306, and an engine speed 308. Prior to, contemporaneous with, or after aggregation of the foregoing data, one or more speed sensors generate and output sensor signals indicative of a real-time traction motor speed, as indicated at process block 303. ) ... . But, neither Takahashi nor Akanda explicitly teach the following, taught in Roth:
(2) an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque (see at least Roth, [0004] disclosing that It is especially advantageous that the operating states "idling" and "not idling" are taken into account through certain ranges of the clutch torque value. It is advantageous to calculate the clutch torque from the engine torque and from the torque loss, so that the engine losses are compensated in idling in particular;)
Takahashi, Akanda and Roth are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Takahashi, to provide the benefit of (1) calculating a converter loss term representing an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque, and (3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term, as disclosed in Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved drive quality by reducing undesirable vehicle response during engagement/disengagement of a K0-launch engine disconnect clutch (see at least Akanda, [0007]). And further modify the combination of Takashi and Akanda to provide the benefit of (3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term, as disclosed in Roth, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having additional information to enable the smooth operation of the engine.
As per claim 3, The combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Akanda further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the one or more control modules include a powertrain control module (PCM) of the hybrid vehicle and a hybrid powertrain control module (HPCM) of the hybrid vehicle (see at least Akanda, [0023] disclosing that the engine disconnect device 28 comprise an active clutching mechanism, such as a controller-actuated selectable one-way clutch (SOWC) or friction-plate clutch; [0025] disclosing that electric power may be provided from the MGU 14 to an onboard traction battery pack 30, e.g., through regenerative braking. Operation of any of the illustrated powertrain components may be governed by an onboard or remote vehicle controller, such as programmable electronic control unit (ECU) 25).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Takahashi as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the one or more control modules include a powertrain control module (PCM) of the hybrid vehicle and a hybrid powertrain control module (HPCM) of the hybrid vehicle, as further disclosed in Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having two controllers to enable the smooth operation of the engine.
As per claim 4, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Zhou further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the upper and lower torque bounds are calculated by the HPCM (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the upper and lower torque bounds are calculated by the HPCM, as further disclosed in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having additional information to enable the smooth operation of the engine.
As per claim 5, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein an integral term of the feedback controller is not relied on to account for converter losses during calculation of the upper and lower torque bounds (see at least Takahashi, [0051] disclosing that the ECU 30 starts the engine by increasing an engine revolution number Ne by cranking torque generated by engaging the clutch 2. That is, the ECU 30 starts the engine 1 by the power transmitted to the engine 1 via the clutch 2. The torque transmitted to the engine 1 via the clutch 2 includes torque transmitted from the drive wheels 8 via the manual transmission 3 and torque transmitted from the motor 4 via the manual transmission 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have an integral term of the feedback controller be not relied on to account for converter losses during calculation of the upper and lower torque bounds, as further disclosed in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per claim 8, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Takahashi further discloses the limitation:
wherein the upper and lower torque bounds are calculated by the PCM, and sent to the HPCM along with the FF engine torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the upper and lower torque bounds are calculated by the PCM, and sent to the HPCM along with the FF engine torque value, as further disclosed in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per claim 9, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the FF engine torque value is determined based on a torque of the engine (see at least Takahashi, [0030] disclosing that disturbance cancellation may be accomplished by manipulating a single signal, such as motor torque while considering engine and clutch torque as well as road disturbance as feedforward signals, or multiple signals, such as motor, clutch, and engine torque)
and known converter losses (see at least Takahashi, [0009] disclosing that determining, via the controller based on the clutch torque command, whether the EDC is in a torque-transmitting active state or a non-torque-transmitting inactive state; calculating, e.g., via the controller responsive to the EDC being in the active state and the TCC slipping <interpreted as known converter loss>, an incremental feedback control signal that is predicted to minimize the estimated jerk and is and based on the engine, motor, and clutch torque commands; and transmitting, via the controller, one or more torque command signals to the engine, motor and/or EDC to modulate a torque output thereof based on the incremental feedback control signal).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Takahashi as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the FF engine torque value determined based on a torque of the engine and known converter losses, as further disclosed in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per claim 11, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the following limitations:
wherein constraining operation of the electric motor via the feedback controller based on the upper and lower torque bounds further comprises: via the HPCM, adjusting a torque generated by the electric motor such that the torque is not greater than the upper torque bound and not less than the lower torque bound (see at least Takahashi, [0059]; [0078] disclosing that at the time of non-braking, the ECU 30 increases the MG torque 103 according to the increase of the clutch torque when the MG torque 103 is less than an upper limit 103a corresponding to the assist upper limit torque Ts1 at the time of non-braking corresponds to. With the operation, a reduction of the vehicle acceleration 101 of the hybrid vehicle 100 which is caused by that the clutch 2 is engaged can be suppressed. In the embodiment, the assist upper limit torque Ts1 at the time of non-braking is made to the same torque as the cranking start torque), and
inputting the adjusted torque back into the feedback controller (see at least Takahashi, [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Takahashi and modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the HPCM, adjusting a torque generated by the electric motor such that the torque is not greater than the upper torque bound and not less than the lower torque bound, and inputting the adjusted torque back into the feedback controller, as further disclosed in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per claim 12, similar to claim 1, Takahashi discloses [a] powertrain of a hybrid vehicle, (see at least Takahashi, Abstract; [0012]; [0034]) comprising:
an engine, an electric motor, a torque converter, and an automatic transmission configured as a modular hybrid transmission (MHT) (see at least Takahashi, Abstract; [0012]; [0034]);
a powertrain control module (PCM) (see at least Takahashi, ); and a hybrid powertrain control module (HPCM) storing instructions in non-transitory memory (see at least Takahashi, [0043] disclosing that The ECU 30 is an electronic control unit having a computer and has a function as a travel control device of the hybrid vehicle 100; [0066]) that, when executed cause the HCMP to
measure an engine torque of an engine (see at least Takahashi, [0044]; [0051]); ... (1) ... , ... (2);
at one or more control modules (see at least Takahashi, [0043] disclosing ECU 30 ),
calculate an upper torque bound and a lower torque bound of a feedback controller based on a feedforward (FF) engine torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0059]; [0082]),
generated by sign-flipping the determined engine torque, and a pre-defined torque threshold (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0082]), ... (3) ... and
constraining operation of the electric motor via the feedback controller based on the upper and lower torque bounds (see at least Takahashi, [0052]);
wherein the upper torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value plus the pre-defined torque threshold, and the lower torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value minus the pre-defined torque threshold (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]). But Takahashi does not explicitly teach the following limitations disclosed in Akanda:
(1) calculate a converter loss term representing an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0041]; [0079]); and
(3) the feedback controller controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0041]; [0081] ) ... . But, neither Takahashi nor Akanda explicitly teach the following, taught in Roth:
(2) an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque (see at least Roth, [0004] disclosing that It is especially advantageous that the operating states "idling" and "not idling" are taken into account through certain ranges of the clutch torque value. It is advantageous to calculate the clutch torque from the engine torque and from the torque loss, so that the engine losses are compensated in idling in particular;)
Takahashi, Akanda and Roth are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Takahashi, to provide the benefit of (1) calculating a converter loss term representing an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque, and (3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term, as disclosed in Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved drive quality by reducing undesirable vehicle response during engagement/disengagement of a K0-launch engine disconnect clutch (see at least Akanda, [0007]). And further modify the combination of Takashi and Akanda to provide the benefit of (3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term, as disclosed in Roth, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having additional information to enable the smooth operation of the engine.
As per claim 13, the combination of Choi and Zhou discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above. Akanda further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the FF engine torque value is received by the HPCM from the PCM (see at least Akanda, [0011] disclosing that an incremental feedback control signal for minimizing the estimated jerk is calculated based on at least the engine, motor, and clutch torque commands. The controller then transmits one or more torque command signals to the engine, motor and/or EDC to modulate a torque output thereof based on the incremental feedback control signal; [0030]; [0079];[0085]),
the FF engine torque value based on the measured engine torque and known converter losses (see at Akanda, [0011]; [0030]; [0041]; [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Takahashi as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the FF torque value be received by the HPCM and the PCM, where the FF torque value is based on an engine torque and known converter loess, as further disclosed in Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per claim 15, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Similar to claim 8, Takahashi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the upper and lower torque bounds are received by the HPCM from the PCM with the FF torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified the vehicle as disclosed in Takahashi as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have instructions that cause the HPCM to calculate the upper and lower torque bounds based on the FF torque value, as further disclosed in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Akanda and Roth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0039259 to Maguire et al. (hereafter Maguire).
As per claim 2, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. But, neither Takahashi, Akanda nor Roth explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Maguire:
wherein the converter loss term is expressed as a percentage of the determine engine torque (see at least Maguire, [0020] disclosing that the configuration in Fig. 2, achieves minimum hardware content without fixed forward gear ratios, and leads to low clutch spin losses but potentially requiring a higher percentage of motive torque generated through the electrical system. This configuration comprises a series-hybrid connection, wherein mechanical torque from the engine 10 to the driveline 98 is transmitted in series through the second machine 70 of the transmission 50).
Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Maguire are analogous art to claim 2 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]). Maguire relates to a gasoline/electric hybrid powertrain system, and more specifically to architectures thereof (see at least Maguire, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the feedback controller be a PID controller, as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda and Roth, to provide the benefit of having the converter loss term is expressed as a percentage of the determine engine torque, as disclosed in Maguire, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving torque and power efficiency of a transmission device, to effectively transmit torque from a plurality of torque-generative devices to an output of the transmission, to provide motive torque to a vehicle (see at least Maguire, [0005]).
Claim 6, 10, 16 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Akanda and Roth as applied to claims 9 and claim 15, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0239451 to Horgan et al. (hereafter Horgan).
As per claim 6, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Takahashi, Akanda nor Roth explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Horgan:
wherein the converter loss term is retrieved from a lookup table based on the determine engine torque (see at least Horgan, [0042] disclosing that the torque ratio module 208 may determine the torque ratio based on the speed ratio. For example, the torque ratio module 208 may determine the torque ratio based on a predetermined relationship between the speed ratio and the torque ratio. The predetermined relationship may be embodied in a lookup table and/or an equation, and may depend on properties of the torque converter 164 that affect torque losses in the torque converter 164; [0048]; [0065]; [0070] disclosing that the systems and methods may then determine an engine torque request by dividing the engine power request by the engine speed, and may control the amount of torque produced by the engine based on the engine torque request. Controlling engine torque based on engine power may not account for torque losses in the torque converter when the torque converter clutch is released. Thus, controlling engine torque based on engine power may yield less vehicle acceleration than expected by a driver for a given pedal position and a given vehicle speed).
Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]). Horgan relates to systems and methods for controlling an engine based on a desired turbine power to account for losses in a torque converter (see at least Horgan, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed Takahashi as modified by Akanda and Roth, to have the converter loss term is retrieved from a lookup table based on the determine engine torque, as disclosed in Horgan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per claim 10, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Takahashi further disclose the following:
the known converter losses based on the FF engine torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0009]; [0030]). But, neither Choi nor Zhou, explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Horgan:
losses retrieved from a lookup table in a memory of the PCM (see at least Horgan, [0042]; [0048]; [0065]; [0070]).
Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan are analogous art to claim 10 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]). Horgan relates to systems and methods for controlling an engine based on a desired turbine power to account for losses in a torque converter (see at least Horgan, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of operation, as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda and Roth, to provide the benefit of having the converter losses retrieved from a lookup table, as disclosed in Horgan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
As per clam 16, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda and Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as disclosed below. Takahashi further disclose the following:
the known converter losses based on the FF engine torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0009]; [0030]). But, neither Takahashi, Akanda nor Roth, explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Horgan:
losses retrieved from a lookup table in a memory of the PCM (see at least Horgan, [0042]; [0048]; [0065]; [0070]).
Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]). Horgan relates to systems and methods for controlling an engine based on a desired turbine power to account for losses in a torque converter (see at least Horgan, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of operation, as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda and Roth, to provide the benefit of having the converter losses retrieved from a lookup table, as disclosed in Horgan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Zhou and Horgan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0248991 to Harada et al. (hereafter Harada).
As per claim 7, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. But, neither Takahashi, Akanda, Roth nor Horgan explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Harada:
the pre-defined torque threshold is stored in a memory of the one or more control modules (see at least Harada [0040] disclosing that an engine operating point (for example, an engine operating point E3 indicated in FIG. 3) which lies on a memory-stored predetermined butting noise preventing operation line (rattling noise preventing operation line) indicated by a broken line in Fig. 3 and obtained by experimentation to prevent the generation of the above-indicated rattling noise and on which the target engine power P.sub.E* can be obtained; [0052], see Fig. 3).
Takahashi, Akanda, Roth, Horgan and Harada are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]). Horgan relates to systems and methods for controlling an engine based on a desired turbine power to account for losses in a torque converter (see at least Horgan, [0002]). Harada relates to techniques for reducing a rattling noise of the electrically controlled differential portion due to a pulsation of a rotary motion of an engine (see at least Harada, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Takahashi, as modified by Akanda, Roth and Horgan, to provide the benefit of, having the pre-defined torque threshold is stored in a memory of the one or more control modules, as disclosed in Harada, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Akanda, Roth and Horgan.
As per claim 18, Takahashi discloses [a] method for operating a modular hybrid transmission (HMT) of a hybrid vehicle (see at least Takahashi, Abstract; [0012]; [0034]), the method comprising:
measuring an engine torque of an engine of the MHT (see at least Takahashi, [0044]; [0051]); ... (1) ... , ... (2);
calculating a feed forward (FF) torque value of the engine, based on the measured engine torque (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082])
calculating an upper torque bound of a desired torque of an electric motor of the MHT by adding a pre-defined torque threshold to the FF torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0078] disclosing that a t the time of non-braking, the ECU 30 increases the MG torque 103 according to the increase of the clutch torque when the MG torque 103 is less than an upper limit 103a corresponding to the assist upper limit torque Ts1 at the time of non-braking corresponds to; [0082]),
calculating a lower bound of the desired torque of by subtracting the pre-defined torque threshold from the FF torque value (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0078]; [0082]), ... (3) ... and
constraining operation of the electric motor via the feedback controller based on the upper and lower torque bounds (see at least Takahashi, [0052]);
wherein the upper torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value plus ... (4) ... and the lower torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value minus the pre-defined torque threshold (see at least Takahashi, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]). But Takahashi does not explicitly teach the following limitations disclosed in Akanda:
(1) calculating a converter loss term representing an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0041]; [0079]); and
(3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term and the upper and lower bound of the desired torque (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0041]; [0081] ) ... . But, neither Takahashi nor Akanda explicitly teach the following, taught in Roth:
(2) an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque (see at least Roth, [0004] disclosing that It is especially advantageous that the operating states "idling" and "not idling" are taken into account through certain ranges of the clutch torque value. It is advantageous to calculate the clutch torque from the engine torque and from the torque loss, so that the engine losses are compensated in idling in particular) ... . But, neither Takahashi, Akanda nor Roth explicitly teach the following, taught in Horgan:
(4) wherein the upper torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value plus the pre-defined torque threshold (similar to claim 6, see at least Horgan, [0042]; [0048]; [0065]; [0070])
Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan are analogous art to claim 18 because they are in the same field of controlling a speed of an electric motor of a modular hybrid transmission of a hybrid vehicle. Takahashi relates to a vehicle control device including an engine, a motor, and a clutch disposed between the engine and the motor and configured to be engaged or released according to an operation input (see at least Takahashi, Abstract). Akanda relates to hybrid electric powertrain architectures and control strategies for vehicle response management (see at least Akanda, [0001]). Roth relates to a method of controlling an internal combustion engine (see at least Roth, [0001]). Horgan relates to systems and methods for controlling an engine based on a desired turbine power to account for losses in a torque converter (see at least Horgan, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Takahashi, to provide the benefit of (1) calculating a converter loss term representing an amount of torque loss at a torque converter of the hybrid vehicle, as a function of the determined engine torque, and (3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term and the upper and lower bound of the desired torque, as disclosed in Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved drive quality by reducing undesirable vehicle response during engagement/disengagement of a K0-launch engine disconnect clutch (see at least Akanda, [0007]). And further modify the combination of Takashi and Akanda to provide the benefit of (3) controlling a torque of an electric motor of the hybrid vehicle based on the FF engine torque value and the converter loss term, and (4) having the upper torque bound is equal to the FF engine torque value plus the pre-defined torque threshold, as disclosed in Roth and Horgan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having additional information to enable the smooth operation of the engine.
As per claim 19, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, as shown above.
Akanda further discloses the following limitations:
calculating the FF torque value and the upper and lower torque bounds at a powertrain control module of the MHT (see at least Akanda, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]),
where the FF torque value is based on a torque generated by the engine (see at least Akanda, [[0052]; [0059]; [0082]) and known torque converter losses (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0040]; [0071]) ... . Takahashi further discloses the following limitations:
where the FF torque value is based on ... and known torque converter losses (see at least Takahashi, [0009]); and
controlling the torque of the electric motor at a hybrid powertrain control module of the MHT (see at least Takahashi, [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed Takahashi, as modified by Akanda, Roth and Horgan, to provide the benefit of calculating the FF torque value and the upper and lower torque bounds at a powertrain control module of the MHT, where the FF torque value is based on a torque generated by the engine and known torque converter losses, calculating the upper and lower torque bounds based on the FF torque value and a torque converter loss, and controlling the torque of the electric motor, as further disclosed in Takahashi and Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having additional information to enable the smooth operation of the engine.
As per claim 20, the combination of Takahashi, Akanda, Roth and Horgan discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as shown above. Akanda further discloses the following limitations:
calculating the FF torque value and converter loss term at a powertrain control module of the MHT (see at least Akanda, [0052]; [0059]; [0082]); and
at a hybrid powertrain control module of the MHT, calculating the upper and lower torque bounds based on the FF torque value (see at least Akanda, [0052]; [0059]; [0082] ) and the converter loss (see at least Akanda, [0030]; [0040]; [0071] ). Takahashi further discloses the following limitations:
calculating ... a converter loss term (see at least Takahashi, [0009]),
and controlling the torque of the electric motor (see at least Takahashi, [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed Takahashi as modified by Akanda, Roth and Horgan, to provide the benefit calculating the FF torque value and the converter loss term, calculating the upper and lower torque bounds based on the FF torque value and the converter loss term, and controlling the torque of the electric moto, as further disclosed in Takahashi and Akanda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the operational control of the hybrid transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: (a) U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0272192 to Ashizawa et al. (hereafter Ashizawa) disclosing motor torque upper limiter [0009] and an engine start lower limit torque at [0100]; and (b) U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0303825 disclosing upper and lower torques at.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5;30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666