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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 25th, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 14, and 17 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Godo et al. (US11680639B1) in view of Lin et al. (CN110116724A) and Kucharski et al. (DE102014105701A1).
Regarding claim 1, Godo teaches a method, comprising: while transitioning a first axle of a tandem axle assembly between shift settings, reducing torque applied at an input connection of the first axle based on a clutch disengagement torque (Col 4, Lines 15-19, tandem axle arrangement; Col. 7, Lines 66-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-5; Col. 9, lines 17-19, force to be exerted by the clutch actuator), and meeting a torque demand via increasing torque applied to an input connection of a second axle of the tandem axle assembly by an opposite amount (Fig. 2, block 100; Cols. 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13). Godo additionally teaches that the torque is redistributed across the axle assembly (Col. 9, lines 10-13) so that any increase or decrease in torque on one axle results in a change in torque on the other axle that is opposite but equal in magnitude.
Godo does not teach oscillating the torque about the clutch disengagement torque following the reducing. However, Godo does teach that the torque can be redistributed during a clutch disengagement operation (Col. 9, lines 10-13).
In the same field of endeavor, reference Lin teaches a method of oscillating the torque about a clutch disengagement torque following the reducing of torque for improving clutch separation ([54], after torque is reduced, and clutch is still not disengaged, the separation oscillation torque is emitted). Note that this oscillation step occurs during a clutch disengagement operation.
As Lin is analogous to transferring torque in an axle system during the disengagement of a clutch, it would have been obvious to modify Godo by oscillating the torque at the first axle after it is reduced for the motivation, as taught by Lin, of improving clutch separation ([19]). Note that both applications occur during a clutch disengagement operation, so it would have been obvious to perform the meeting of the torque demand while oscillating the torque applied to the input connection of the first axle as both Godo and Lin perform a disengagement of the clutch to ensure that the manipulation of torque on one axle results in an opposite manipulation of torque on the other axle.
Godo teaches reducing the clutch torque, and Lin teaches that this reduction is to a predetermined disengagement value. However, the combination does not teach that this clutch disengagement torque value is based on one or more of atmospheric temperature and a vehicle temperature.
It is noted that the term "a vehicle temperature" lacks an explicit definition in para. 39 as cited by applicant, nor is such a definition found in the rest of the specification. As such, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches that an optimal clutch torque for shift events, i.e. clutch disengagement torque, is based on a transmission oil temperature, i.e. a vehicle temperature ([0031], [0033], and [0036-0037], where a clutch torque is produced as a function of key operating conditions including transmission oil temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to vary the clutch disengagement torque of the previous combo based on transmission oil temperature based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kucharski, of ensuring shift quality ([0033]) and avoiding unpleasant shift shock by vehicle occupants as a result of a bad shift due to different temperature conditions ([0029]).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Godo further teaches that a reduction of torque at the first axle is equal to an increase of torque at the second axle (Cols 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13, torque provided by the first motor is reduced by the same amount that the second motor increases).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Lin further teaches adjusting a frequency, amplitude, or period of the oscillation of the torque around the clutch disengagement torque based on an operating parameter of the first axle ([57], adjusts the period cycle based on rotational speed).
With reference to claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Godo further teaches a torque demand of the first axle being equal to a torque demand of the second axle prior to and after transitioning the first axle between shift settings (Col. 10, lines 33-37, “substantially equal”). Godo also teaches that the torque of the second axle is reduced proportionally to the increase in torque of the first axle so as to meet a torque demand caused by the increased torque of the first axle (Cols. 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13).
Additional reference Lin of the prior combination further teaches wherein oscillating torque applied to the input connection of the first axle comprises oscillating torque about a threshold equal to the clutch disengagement torque ([54], [56-57], and [63], where the torque is oscillated around the clutch disengagement torque when the clutch torque is reduced to the clutch disengagement torque).
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that, while oscillating the torque applied to the input connection of the first axle, oscillating torque applied to an input connection of a second axle of the tandem axle assembly by an opposite amount, nor that oscillating torque applied to the input connection of the second axle comprises oscillating torque at or below the torque demand. However, Godo does teach that the torque provided by the first and second electric motors respectively to the first and second axle assemblies is taught to be changed proportionally "at the same rate and by the same amount", meaning that a change in one torque value results in an equal but opposite shift in the other value (Cols 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13).
A skilled artisan would have recognized that oscillating the torque of the first axle in the manner described by Lin would change the values of the torque being applied on the first axle. Therefore, in order for the torques applied to the two axles to remain proportional, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to oscillate the torque of the second axle torque applied to an input connection of a second axle of the tandem axle assembly by an opposite amount equal in magnitude to the oscillation on the first axle, thereby meeting the torque demand caused by the oscillating torque for the first axle. This ensures that the torque on the first and second axle remain in proportion to each other as the torque of the first axle is oscillated in the manner disclosed by Lin.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Godo further teaches that, while transitioning the first axle of the tandem axle assembly between shift settings, increasing torque applied at an input connection of a second axle of the tandem axle assembly. (Cols 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5, and Godo further teaches that wherein adjusting the torque applied at the input connection of the first axle based on the clutch disengagement torque includes reducing the torque from an initial torque to the clutch disengagement torque (Col. 9, lines 17-19, “reducing torque… to actuate an associated clutch”, where the clutch disengagement torque is the torque in which the clutch of Godo can successfully disengage), and wherein increasing the torque applied at the input connection of the second axle includes increasing the torque by an amount equal to a difference between the initial torque and the clutch disengagement torque (Col. 9, Lines 9-13, torque at the input connection of the second axle is increased by the same amount that the torque at the input connection of the first axle decreases by, which is the difference between the initial torque and the torque that it disengages at).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 5, and Godo further teaches that decreasing the torque applied at the input connection of the first axle and increasing the torque applied at the input connection of the second axle occurs concurrently (Col. 7, Lines 66-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-5; Col. 9, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 1, and Lin teaches adjusting the torque applied at the input connection of the first axle based on the clutch disengagement torque includes decreasing the torque applied at the input connection of the first axle by more than 50% ([14] and [26]; [56], example reduces the torque to 0, which is a 100% reduction).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as previously applied, and Lin further teaches that the clutch disengagement torque is a pre-determined torque value ([56-57] and [63], table 2. Examiner notes that the format for table 2 was not properly copied over when Lin was translated, and as a result, a properly translated table 2 has been inserted below, which shows how the clutch disengagement torque is pre-determined based on rotational speed).
Speed
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Torque Ts
20
?
40
?
?
?
80
90
90
Table 2
The combination of Godo and Lin does not explicitly teach that the pre-determined torque value is based on a force output of an actuator of a clutch. However, pre-determining torque values for a clutch based on a force output of an actuator of a clutch is known to those in the art as reference Kucharski teaches predefining a relationship between factors that impact the force output of a clutch actuator, and the clutch torque ([0031-0035], characterization of the performance of the clutch actuator). Substituting the clutch disengagement torque being determined by rotational speed, as taught by the prior combination, with it instead being determined by the performance of the clutch actuator results in the predictable outcome of the torque applied at the input connection of being reduced to a value depending on the potential force outputted by the clutch actuator. Thus, a more accurate value for which a torque applied at an input connection of an axle should be reduced to is determined so that gear shift can be performed efficiently.
It therefore would have been obvious to substitute the teaching of Kucharski into the previous combination so that the clutch disengagement torque is instead determined based on the force an actuator can output. The motivation for this combination is that the exact value in which a clutch can safely actuate is known, and therefore reducing it to this value prevents the result of the torque not being reduced enough so that the clutch cannot successfully disengage in a manner unharmonious to a driver, or the result of the torque being reduced too much so that the disengagement operation takes longer and puts more strain on the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Godo teaches a method, comprising, during a shift event of a tandem axle assembly including a first axle and a second axle: reducing torque applied at a clutch of the first axle while concurrently increasing torque applied at the second axle (Col. 7, Lines 66-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-5; Col. 9, lines 10-13); and maintaining the increased torque applied at the second axle (Col. 9, lines 10-13, “torque provided by the first motor may be reduced by the same rate and amount as torque provided by the second motor is increased”, meaning the increase is maintained to counteract any change in the first motor). Godo additionally teaches that the torque is redistributed across the axle assembly (Col. 9, lines 10-13) so that any increase or decrease in torque on one axle results in a change in torque on the other axle that is opposite but equal in magnitude.
Godo does not teach that, while maintaining the increased torque applied at the second axle, oscillating the reduced torque applied at the first axle, and disengaging the clutch coupled to the first axle during the oscillation of the reduced torque applied at the first axle. However, Godo does teach that the torque can be redistributed during a clutch disengagement operation (Col. 9, lines 10-13). In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches oscillating the reduced torque applied at the first axle ([54]), and disengaging the clutch coupled to the first axle during the oscillation of the reduced torque applied at the first axle ([23-24] and [27], clutch disconnect command given at the same time the motor emits the active separation oscillation torque). Note that this oscillation step occurs during a clutch disengagement operation.
As Lin is analogous to transferring torque in an axle system during the disengagement of a clutch, it would have been obvious to modify Godo by oscillating the torque at the first axle after it is reduced for the motivation, as taught by Lin, of improving clutch separation ([19]). Note that both applications occur during a clutch disengagement operation, so it would have been obvious to perform the meeting of the torque demand while oscillating the torque applied to the input connection of the first axle as both Godo and Lin perform a disengagement of the clutch to ensure that the manipulation of torque on one axle results in an opposite manipulation of torque on the other axle.
Godo teaches reducing the clutch torque, and Lin teaches that this reduction is to a predetermined disengagement value. However, the combination does not teach that this reduced torque is based on one or more of an atmospheric temperature and a vehicle temperature.
It is noted that the term "a vehicle temperature" lacks an explicit definition in para. 39 as cited by applicant, nor is such a definition found in the rest of the specification. As such, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches that an optimal reduced torque for shift events, based on a transmission oil temperature, i.e. a vehicle temperature ([0031], [0033], and [0036-0037], where a clutch torque is produced as a function of key operating conditions including transmission oil temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to vary the clutch disengagement torque of the previous combo based on transmission oil temperature based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kucharski, of ensuring shift quality ([0033]) and avoiding unpleasant shift shock by vehicle occupants as a result of a bad shift due to different temperature conditions ([0029]).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 10, and Godo further teaches splitting a total torque demand equally between the first axle and the second (Col. 10, lines 33-37, “substantially equal”).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 10, and Godo further teaches, during the shift event, prior to disengaging the clutch, driving the first axle via a gearbox at a first gear ratio (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & 41-43, upshift from a first gear ratio); and, after disengaging the clutch, driving the first axle via the gearbox at a different, second gear ratio (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & 41-43, upshift to a second gear ratio).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 10, and Godo further teaches, after disengaging the clutch and during the shift event, equally increasing the torque applied at the first axle and reducing the torque applied at the second axle (Col. 9, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 12, and Godo further teaches, after equally increasing the torque applied at the first axle and reducing the torque applied at the second axle, during the shift event, disengaging a clutch coupled to the second axle (Col. 10, lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 14, and Godo further teaches each of reducing the torque applied at the first axle and oscillating the reduced torque applied at the first axle includes adjusting energization of a first electric traction motor coupled to the clutch (Fig. 1, motor 36; Col. 8 and 9, lines 65-67 and 1-15, all torque adjustments performed by changing torque provided by the motor).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 10, and Godo further teaches that the second axle meets torque demand (Col. 7, Lines 66-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-5; Col. 9, lines 10-13, any increase or decrease in the torque on the first axle is reciprocated by an equal decrease or increase in torque on the second axle).
Regarding Claim 17, Godo teaches a vehicle system comprising a tandem axle assembly (Col 4, Lines 15-19, tandem axle arrangement) including a first and second axle (Fig. 1, Axles 22 and 24), a first and second clutch (Fig. 1, clutches 80) engageable to couple the first and second axle to the first and second gearbox (Fig. 1, transmission 38), and a controller (Fig. 1, control system 90) with computer readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory (Col. 7, lines 26-52) that when executed, cause the controller to: transition the first axle of the tandem axle assembly between shift settings (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & 41-43); during the transition, reduce torque applied at an input connection of the first clutch to a disengagement torque (Col 4, Lines 15-19, tandem axle arrangement; Col. 7, Lines 66-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-5; Col. 9, lines 17-19, force to be exerted by the clutch actuator); and increasing torque applied at the second clutch to meet a torque demand. (Fig. 2, block 100; Cols. 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13).
Godo does not teach that the controller is programmed to have the torque oscillated about the disengagement torque. However, Godo does teach that the torque can be redistributed during a clutch disengagement operation (Col. 9, lines 10-13). In the same field of endeavor, reference Lin teaches having the torque oscillated about the disengagement torque ([54], after torque is reduced, and clutch is still not disengaged, the separation oscillation torque is emitted). Note that this oscillation step occurs during a clutch disengagement operation.
As Lin is analogous to transferring torque in an axle system during the disengagement of a clutch, it would have been obvious to modify Godo by oscillating the torque at the first axle after it is reduced for the motivation, as taught by Lin, of improving clutch separation ([19]).
Godo teaches reducing the clutch torque, and Lin teaches that this reduction is to a predetermined disengagement value. However, the combination does not teach that this clutch disengagement torque value is based on one or more of atmospheric temperature and a vehicle temperature.
It is noted that the term "a vehicle temperature" lacks an explicit definition in para. 39 as cited by applicant, nor is such a definition found in the rest of the specification. As such, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches that an optimal clutch torque for shift events, i.e. clutch disengagement torque, is based on a transmission oil temperature, i.e. a vehicle temperature ([0031], [0033], and [0036-0037], where a clutch torque is produced as a function of key operating conditions including transmission oil temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to vary the clutch disengagement torque of the previous combo based on transmission oil temperature based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kucharski, of ensuring shift quality ([0033]) and avoiding unpleasant shift shock by vehicle occupants as a result of a bad shift due to different temperature conditions ([0029]).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 17, and Lin further teaches that the controller is configured to: disengage the first clutch in response to the torque applied at the first clutch being equal to or less than the disengagement torque ([21], reduce torque so that it is made less than a set value; [23-24] and [27], the clutch disconnect command and oscillation occur simultaneously, both being after the clutch torque is reduced to a determined clutch disengagement torque).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 17, and Godo further teaches that controller is additionally programmed to: concurrently increase torque applied at the second clutch during the adjustment of the torque applied at the first clutch (Col. 9, lines 10-13, Cols. 7 and 8, lines 66-67 and lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 17, and Godo further teaches that the vehicle system is also comprised of a first and second motor (Fig. 1, motors 36) coupled to their respective axles (Fig. 1, Axles 22 and 24) to drive them via their respective gearboxes (Fig. 1, transmissions 38).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godo in view of Lin and Kucharski, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kao (US 11235667 B1).
With reference to claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Godo further teaches a torque demand of the first axle being equal to a torque demand of the second axle prior to and after transitioning the first axle between shift settings (Col. 10, lines 33-37, “substantially equal”). Godo also teaches that the torque of the second axle is reduced proportionally to the increase in torque of the first axle so as to meet a torque demand caused by the increased torque of the first axle (Cols. 8 and 9, lines 58-67 and 1-13).
Additional reference Lin of the prior combination further teaches wherein oscillating torque applied to the input connection of the first axle comprises oscillating torque about a threshold equal to the clutch disengagement torque ([54], [56-57], and [63], where the torque is oscillated around the clutch disengagement torque when the clutch torque is reduced to the clutch disengagement torque).
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that, while oscillating the torque applied to the input connection of the first axle, oscillating torque applied to an input connection of a second axle of the tandem axle assembly by an opposite amount. However, related reference Kao teaches a method of, while oscillating the torque applied to an input connection of a first axle, oscillating torque applied to an input connection of a second axle of the tandem axle assembly by an opposite amount (Col 7, lines 35-37 and 43-44, “wave’s phasors are complete and opposite…therefore canceling each other out). Note that this matching of oscillations occurs while the torque of one axle is oscillated.
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Kao and, as any change in the torque of the second axle is proportional to the change in torque of the first axle as taught by Godo, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that this oscillating torque applied to the input connection of the second axle comprises oscillating torque at or below the torque demand caused by the change in torque of the first axle so that the torque of the second axle remains in proportion to the torque of the first axle.
As Kao is analogous to the art of torque management of multi-axle systems during a shift event, it would have been obvious to modify the prior combination by oscillating the torque in the second axle by an amount opposite the oscillation of the torque in the first axle. This modification, according to Kao, achieves a better quality of drive shift (Col. 8, lines 44-45), and creates a more harmonious acceleration perceived by operators of the vehicle (Col 7, lines 45-47) by ensuring the torque of one axle cancels the other out.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to claim 5. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that neither Godo nor Lin teach “the clutch disengagement torque [being] based on one or more of an atmospheric temperature and a vehicle temperature” as required by the amended claims. This argument regarding Godo in view Lin is found persuasive, and thus the previous rejection is withdrawn.
However, applicant further argues that Kao and Kucharski “also fail to teach that ‘the clutch disengagement torque is based on one or more of an atmospheric temperature and a vehicle temperature.’” As stated in para. 11 of the presently filed office action, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the newly claimed “vehicle temperature” includes a “transmission oil temperature” as taught by Kucharski. Thus, applicant’s argument regarding Kucharski is unpersuasive, and a new ground of rejection is made based on the combination of Godo et al. (US11680639B1) in view of Lin et al. (CN110116724A) and Kucharski et al. (DE102014105701A1).
Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R. BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663