DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on September 16, 2025.
Claims 1-3 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding Objection to the Specification:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered. The outstanding objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting all of the new matter introduced via the amendment that was filed on June 4, 2025.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant references where in the specification each of the cited phrases is explained in the specification. However, those paragraphs in the specification do not recite the structure that is associated with the cited phrases, rather, only the function that is accomplished by the cited phrases is explained in each respective paragraph. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation analysis is maintained for each of the cited phrases.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant references where in the specification each of the cited phrases is explained in the specification. However, those paragraphs in the specification do not recite the structure that is associated with the cited phrases, rather, only the function that is accomplished by the cited phrases is explained in each respective paragraph. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 112(a) rejections are maintained for each of the cited phrases.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant references where in the specification each of the cited phrases is explained in the specification. However, those paragraphs in the specification do not recite the structure that is associated with the cited phrases, rather, only the function that is accomplished by the cited phrases is explained in each respective paragraph. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 112(b) rejections are maintained for each of the cited phrases.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
An “effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure” as cited in claim 1 and as described in the specification in paragraph [0006] is described as, “a torque transmission process involves complicated stress states, and the force that effectively acts on a driven member to transmit torque is called effective torque force.” The Examiner takes the position that the Jacoby reference (Publication US 2018/0148065 A1) discloses an effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure in paragraph [0080], “…the electronic control, module 320 can include a feedback module … to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and transmission output shaft 376.”
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the effective torque force is used as a master control parameter, instead of using a throttle percentage signal, an engine speed signal, a vehicle speed signal or an engine crankshaft torque signal”, the Jess reference (Publication US 2012/0130609 A1) discloses this limitation in paragraph [0020], “…the transmission control module may be a stand-alone device capable of ensuring that torque requests generated in the transmission control module will not result in unintended acceleration.” This discloses that the transmission control module is a master control parameter, in that it will not allow other signals to override the control signals that it is transmitting.
Regarding the limitation, “an effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure is mandatory”, the Jacoby reference in paragraph [0080], “…the electronic control module 320 can include a feedback module … to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and the transmission output shaft 376.” The electronic control module 320 is being mapped to the effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure and therefore is a mandator component that receives the sensor signals in order to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and output shaft 376.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure is configured to” in claim 1;
“effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure is configured to” in claim 1;
“torque force adjusting device configured to” in claim 1;
“a torque force buffering device configured to” in claim 1; and
“a torque force feedback signal processing unit configured to“ in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure is configured to”, is not described in the specification in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, there is no explanation regarding what components are associated with the “effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure.”
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure is configured to” is not described in the specification in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, there is no explanation regarding what components are associated with the “effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure.”
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “torque force adjusting device configured to” is not described in the specification in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, there is no explanation regarding what components are associated with the “torque force adjusting device.”
Regarding claim 1, “torque force buffering device configured to” is not described in the specification in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, there is no explanation regarding what components are associated with the “torque force buffering device.”
Regarding claim 1, “torque force feedback signal processing unit configured to“ is not described in the specification in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, there is no explanation regarding what components are associated with the “torque force feedback signal processing unit.”
Claim 1 recites “the torque force adjusting device is connected to the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure”, “the torque force buffering device is connected to the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure”, and “the torque force feedback signal processing unit is connected to the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure”, however, these limitations are considered new matter since these features were not disclosed in the originally filed application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the driven structure" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure is configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what structure is associated with the “effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure is configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what structure is associated with the “effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “torque force adjusting device configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what structure is associated with the “torque force adjusting device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a torque force buffering device configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what structure is associated with the “a torque force buffering device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a torque force feedback signal processing unit configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what structure is associated with the “a torque force feedback signal processing unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby, et al., Publication US 2018/0148065 A1, in view of Zhang, et al., Publication 2011/0111921 A1, further in view of Jess, et al., Publication 2012/0130609 A1, and further in view of and further in view of Redzinski, US Patent 4,148,231 (hereinafter referred to as “Jacoby”, “Zhang”, “Jess”, and “Redzinski”, respectively.)
As per claim 1, Jacoby discloses a transmission speed change control system, comprising:
a power input structure [see at least Jacoby [0080] "transmission input shaft 374"],
a output structure [see at least Jacoby [0080] "transmission output shaft 376"],
an effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure [see at least Jacoby [0080] "... the electronic control module 320 can include a feedback module ... to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and the transmission output shaft 376."],
an effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure [see at least Jacoby [0080] "... the electronic control module 320 can include a feedback module ... to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and the transmission output shaft 376."],
a gearshift [see at least Jacoby [0048] "...The transmission 170 includes multiple sets of mating gears (not shown) and a shifting assembly 160. The transmission 170 can be shifted between the different sets of mating gears to modulate the engine power and speed applied to the drive shaft 112 (and vehicle wheels). The shifting assembly 160 includes any suitable number of shifting elements (not shown).."], and
a transmission [see at least Jacoby [0047] "Transmission 170"],
optionally, a torque force adjusting device [see at least Jacoby [0080] "....the electronic control module 320 and/or the speed matching module are configured to produce a motor control signal to adjust a speed of a motor shaft such that a speed of the transmission output shaft gear 382 is matched to a speed of the transmission input shaft 374 during a gear shift operation."];
optionally, a torque force buffering device [see at least Jacoby [0048] the shifting element (or any of the shifting elements shown herein) can be a synchronizer that includes a blocker ring and one or more conical-shaped collars, each of which is coupled to and axially movable along a transmission shaft. As the synchronizer is moved axially along the shaft into engagement with the target gear, the blocker ring prevents engagement between the synchronizer and the target gear until the shaft and the target gear have reached a sufficiently similar or substantially identical rotational speed. Said another way, the blocker ring prevents teeth associated with the synchronizer from grinding with teeth associated with the target gear.]; and
optionally, a torque force feedback signal processing unit [see at least Jacoby see at least Jacoby [0080] "... the electronic control module 320 can include a feedback module ... to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and the transmission output shaft 376."];
wherein
the power input structure is connected to the transmission via the effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure; the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure is connected to the effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure and the gearshift; the torque force adjusting device is connected to the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure; the torque force buffering device is connected to the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure; the torque force feedback signal processing unit is connected to the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure [see at least Jacoby FIGS. 1 and 3];
the effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure is configured to monitor an effective torque force in an torque transmission process between the power input structure and the transmission and generate effective torque force feedback signals, the effective torque force is an acting force when the power input structure transmits power to the driven structure [see at least Jacoby [0080] "... the electronic control module 320 can include a feedback module ... to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and the transmission output shaft 376."];
the effective torque force feedback signal transmission structure is configured to transmit the effective torque force feedback signals generated by the torque force monitoring and feedback structure to the gearshift, wherein the effective torque force feedback signals can be … voltage signals … [see at least Jacoby [0080] "....the electronic control module 320 and/or the speed matching module are configured to produce a motor control signal to adjust a speed of a motor shaft such that a speed of the transmission output shaft gear 382 is matched to a speed of the transmission input shaft 374 during a gear shift operation."; (voltage signals) [0054] "The electronic control unit 120 (or any of the controllers described herein) can include a memory 127, a processor 126, and an input/output module (or interface) 125. … The electronic control unit 120 is coupled to the computer 128…"; [0055] "The processor 126 can be any processor configured to...control operation of the other modules within the controller...the processor 126 can receive a signal......the processor 126 can be ...an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or combination of ASICs, which are designed to perform one or more specific functions."], and
the gearshift is configured to perform corresponding gear shifting actions according to the effective torque force feedback signals to change a gear ratio of the transmission, such that the gear ratio of the transmission is matched with motion states of the power input structure and the output structure [see at least Jacoby [0080] "....the electronic control module 320 and/or the speed matching module are configured to produce a motor control signal to adjust a speed of a motor shaft such that a speed of the transmission output shaft gear 382 is matched to a speed of the transmission input shaft 374 during a gear shift operation."];
the torque force adjusting device is configured to adjust the effective torque force … [see at least Jacoby [0080] "....the electronic control module 320 and/or the speed matching module are configured to produce a motor control signal to adjust a speed of a motor shaft such that a speed of the transmission output shaft gear 382 is matched to a speed of the transmission input shaft 374 during a gear shift operation."].
Jacoby fails to disclose … wherein the effective torque force feedback signals can be hydraulic signals, … and displacement signals; … the torque force feedback signal processing unit configured to filter and further process the effective torque force feedback signals, eliminate interference signals, … correct the torque force feedback signals, and convert the torque force feedback signals into gearshift driving signals. However, Zhang teaches these limitations:
… wherein the effective torque force feedback signals can be hydraulic signals, … and displacement signals [see at least Zhang [0021] “These torque sensors each measure various parameters such as local strain, angular displacement, or strained-induced change on an acoustic wave in order to determine the torque applied on the output member 16.” [0022] “The hydraulic control system 36 receives command signals from the transmission controller 33 and converts the command signals to hydraulic signals to control the actuation of the torque-transmitting mechanisms 26A-C.”];
… the torque force feedback signal processing unit configured to filter and further process the effective torque force feedback signals [see at least Zhang [0008] "The control logic includes a first control logic for generating … a second control logic for filtering the torque signal, a third control logic for generating and storing an initial torque signal data set from the filtered torque signal.."];
eliminate interference signals, … correct the torque force feedback signals, and convert the torque force feedback signals into gearshift driving signals [see at least Zhang {Examiner Note: filtering is eliminating signals} see at least Zhang [0008] "The control logic includes a first control logic for generating … a second control logic for filtering the torque signal, a third control logic for generating and storing an initial torque signal data set from the filtered torque signal."; {Examiner Note: converting the signal is correcting the signal} [0022] "...The transmission controller 33 receives the torque sensor 30 output signal, performs the control logic and sends command signals to a hydraulic control system 36. The hydraulic control system 36 receives command signals from the transmission controller 33 and converts the command signals to hydraulic signals to control the actuation of the torque-transmitting mechanisms 26A-C....";].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Jacoby to use … wherein the effective torque force feedback signals can be hydraulic signals, … and displacement signals; … the torque force feedback signal processing unit configured to filter and further process the effective torque force feedback signals, eliminate interference signals, … correct the torque force feedback signals, and convert the torque force feedback signals into gearshift driving signals in Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved control of the transmission. [See at least Zhang [0001].]
The combination of Jacoby and Zhang fails to disclose … the torque force buffering device configured to buffer the effective torque force, eliminate a sudden change of the effective torque force, ensure smooth change of the effective torque force, and avoid redundant gear shifting actions caused by the sudden change of the effective torque force. However, Jess teaches this limitation [see at least Jess [0020] "…the transmission control module may be a stand-alone device capable of ensuring that torque requests generated in the transmission control module will not result in unintended acceleration."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Jacoby to use … the torque force buffering device configured to buffer the effective torque force, eliminate a sudden change of the effective torque force, ensure smooth change of the effective torque force, and avoid redundant gear shifting actions caused by the sudden change of the effective torque force as disclosed in Jess with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the speed and quality or feel of a transmission shift. [See at least Jess [0001].]
The combination of Jacoby, Zhang, and Jess fails to disclose … amplify main control signals … . However, Redzinski teaches this limitation [see at least Redzinski col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 6 "The automatic control system comprises a shift signal generating means 18 which is responsive to a vehicle speed signal for generating transmission shift signals, subject to a manually selected speed range inhibit signal. The speed signal is produced by a speed signal generating means 20 which is mechanically coupled with the output shaft 16 of the transmission. The speed signal is applied through an amplifier 22 to the input of the shift signal generator."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Jacoby and Zhang to use … wherein the torque force feedback signal processing unit is configured to … amplify main control signals …as disclosed in Redzinski with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effective performance of the vehicle. [See at least Redzinski col. 2, lines 3-5.]
As per claim 2, Jacoby fails to disclose … wherein the effective torque force is used as a master control parameter, instead of using a throttle percentage signal, an engine speed signal, a vehicle speed signal or an engine crankshaft torque signal. However, Jess teaches this limitation [see at least Jess [0020] "…the transmission control module may be a stand-alone device capable of ensuring that torque requests generated in the transmission control module will not result in unintended acceleration."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Jacoby to use … wherein the effective torque force is used as a master control parameter, instead of using a throttle percentage signal, an engine speed signal, a vehicle speed signal or an engine crankshaft torque signal as disclosed in Jess with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the speed and quality or feel of a transmission shift. [See at least Jess [0001].]
As per claim 3, Jacoby discloses … wherein an effective torque force monitoring and feedback structure is mandatory [see at least Jacoby [0080] "... the electronic control module 320 can include a feedback module ... to receive input from sensors configured to monitor the torque and/or speed of the transmission input shaft 374 and the transmission output shaft 376."].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 Jabr can be reached at 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668