DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 09/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS 09/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, under 35 U.S.C. §103, have been maintained.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that Lee does not disclose or suggest correcting damping torque as alleged. In Lee, a torque command value from a control apparatus to an electric machine (motor) is corrected. Thus, a torque correction is not performed in the control apparatus.
Lee discloses an electrically-powered torque machine 35 (electric motor) connected to an internal combustion engine 40 by a pully mechanism 38 (that includes a serpentine belt) as indicated in the annotated figure below. Lee 1 10. Due to torque transfer using a belt, damping control of an average transfer torque can be performed, but damping control synchronized with a combustion cycle of an internal combustion engine cannot be performed because a belt does not provide adequate response (i.e., the response of a belt is too low).
Modifying lee to have a synchronized damping control would change the principle of operation of Lee (by changing something other than a belt drive), which would not have been obvious to modify Lee to arrive at the above-quoted features of claim 1.
As disclosed in Lee, the pulley mechanism 38 “may include any suitable torque coupling mechanism, such as a positive-displacement gearing mechanism or a flexible chain.” (¶ [0011]) Here, Lee is discussing the damping control being applied to something other than a belt drive, e.g., a gear system. In any mechanical system there is going to be a response delay due to backlash and other mechanical inefficiencies. Therefore, the damping control which is effective for a serpentine belt, may be applied to gear systems or other mechanical coupling systems as discussed in Lee.
The Applicant further argues:
The office action alleges that it would have been obvious to modify Lee to arrive at “calculating the damping torque to have a waveform that is synchronous with a waveform of the rotational frequency signal” based on ¶¶ 117-132 of Yamamoto. Office Action pp. 9-10.
Yamamoto describes a system where a torsion angle of the damper 50 is used to suppress a tooth hammer sound of a toque split mechanism 60 (a gear mechanism). Yamamoto ¶¶ 80-83. The torque split mechanism includes “a carrier 61, a ring gear 62, a sun gear 63, pinion gears 64 and the like.” Id. ¶ 37. The torsion angle is a relative angle between a first shaft 41 and a second shaft 42 of the damper 50 and is detected by angle sensor 84. Id. ¶ 82. This is the same torque transfer system as the embodiment relied upon in the Office Action. Id. ¶ 104. Fig. 6 has been copied and annotated below with the relevant information.
Comparing fig. 6. Of Yamamoto to Fig. 1 of Lee, there are no gears in Lee that might generate a tooth hammer sound similar to the torque split mechanism of Yamamoto. Thus there is no reason to incorporate either the device or control method of Yamamoto into the device of Lee.
As provided above, Lee discloses that the system can be a coupling mechanism that includes gears. Further, the system of Lee includes multiple other geared devices throughout the drivetrain. (¶ [0017]) Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues:
¶¶ 117-127 of Lee describe a control bus timing synchronization process where timing is based on the rising edge of a signal. Of the paragraphs citied in the rejection, ¶¶ 128-132 are most relevant. The position of the crankshaft 4, the rotor 14 (or fourth shaft 44), the rotor 24 (or third shaft 43) are detected. Lee ¶ 128. Rotation speeds of the first shaft 41, the third shaft 43 and fourth shat 44 are calculated from detected values. Id. ¶¶ 129-130. The angular velocity of the second shaft 42 is calculated based on the angular velocities of the fist, third, and fourth shafts. Id. ¶ 131. This is used to calculate the differential value d0/dt of the damper torsion angle 0, which is used to calculate a torque correction value dTg. Id. Then the calculated values are used to suppress the tooth hammer sound of the torque split mechanism 60. Id. ¶ 132.
Here, the Applicant is citing to Lee, however, the Examiner believes this to be in error and that the Applicant actually means to cite to Yamamoto. For the purposes of this argument, the Examiner will be referring to the Yamamoto art.
The paragraphs cited in the Office Action, but not presented in the above argument, are used to show that Yamamoto provides a single synchronous signal, e.g., a synchronous waveform, that is generated independent of the measurements of the system. The synchronous waveform is then used to determine the various rotational velocities and positions of the components in the drivetrain. Further based on the synchronous signal and the calculated damper torsion angle, the system determines and sends to the electric motor a calculated torque correction value dTg. In other words, Yamamoto is provided to teach a damping system that calculates damping torque waveforms that are synchronous with the other rotational frequency signals of the system by using a single synchronizing signal. Therefore, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues:
Importantly, rotation angle information of a rotary electric machine (motor) is not used for torque correction. Instead, torque correction is performed on the first rotary electric machine 10 using measured values from various shafts related to the torque split mechanism 60.
As provided above by the Applicant, the rotation speeds of the shafts are used to calculate the differential value of the damper torsion angle, which is used to calculate the torque correction value. The shafts listed above includes the fourth shaft 44. Shaft 44 is directly attached to the first rotary electric machine 10. This makes their rotational angle information equivalent. As illustrated above in the quoted section from Yamamoto: “’The position of the crankshaft 4, the rotor 14 (or fourth shaft 44), the rotor 24 (or third shaft 43) are detected.’ Lee ¶ 128.” Here, Yamamoto is using the fourth shaft 44 and the rotor 14 (of the electric machine) interchangeably. Therefore, when Yamamoto discloses calculating the torque correction value based on the information about fourth shaft 44, this is the equivalent to basing the calculation on the information of the rotor of the electric machine. Therefore, the Examiner disagrees with the above assertion.
The Applicant further argues:
The office action admits that the combination of Lee and Yamamoto fail to disclose “correcting a phase of the damping torque based on a value of a normalized rotational frequency signal and a value of a normalized damping torque.” Office Action p. 10. The Office Action alleges that the deficiencies of Lee and Yamamoto would have been obvious based upon §4.3 LQR of Hermansson. Office Action p. 12. LQR is a linear quadratic regulator. Hermansson p. XIII.
Hermansson describes “the theory behind the driveline stabilization issue.” Hermansson §2. The driveline includes elements such as transmission, shafts, wheels but not a prime mover (i.e., electric motor). Id. § 2.1. The problem Hermansson claims to solve is oscillations that occur in an electric power train due to driveshaft flexibility causing jerking and high gear contact forces. Id. §1.2. The controller “imitat[es] a simple virtual physical damper.” Id. § 1.4 Fig. 10 of Hermansson (duplicated before) illustrates the controller. The controller is not a controller like in Yamamoto but instead is a modelling element that imitates (or controls a portion of the model like) a physical damper.
Hermansson is providing a generalized solution for any linear vibrating systems. Both Lee and Yamamoto are linear vibrating systems. The controller in Hermansson is a part of an algorithm that is run on a computer and would, in practice, be run on a vehicle’s computer. While the controller in Hermansson is strictly digital, due to it being part of a simulation of a system rather than a physical system, that doesn’t mean that the controller algorithm would not work in a vehicle’s control system. Therefore, the examiner finds the above argument unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues:
LQR is a control strategy for “vibration suppression problems in linear vibrating systems” Id. § 2.6. The strategy specifically relates to differential equations and state vectors and minimizing the cost function. Id. §§ 2.6-2.6.2.
The Office Action alleges that it would have been obvious to incorporate LQR of Hermansson into the combination of Lee and Yamamoto “to ensure no misinterpretation by the controller.” Office Action p. 12.
In Hermansson, the “controller” is equation 30 in § 2.6.2. Thus the alleged motivation to incorporate Hermansson into the combination of Lee and Yamamoto is misplaced. The controller of Hermansson is an equation in a simulation model, whereas the controller of Yamamoto is a computer that communicates via a control bus. There is no reason to believe that incorporation of LQR (a linear quadratic regulator, which is a mathematical function) will “ensure no misinterpretation by the controller” of Yamamoto or of the combination of Lee and Yamamoto.
The controller(s) in Hermansson are controllers as software. They are not limited to the controller equation as provided above (§2.6.2) but instead are software systems that receive input data, e.g., torque data, and then process that data to provide output data, e.g., to the electric motor. (§5.3) In other words, these controllers would be the software implemented on the physical ECUs of the vehicle system in a practical application of the simulated system. Therefore, the motivation to combine can be read as “ensure no misinterpretation by the vehicle software”. Due to the safety and comfort concerns with vehicles the method of ensuring correct software interpretation is a strong reason to combine the LQR system of Hermansson with the control systems of Lee and Yamamoto.
The Applicant further argues:
For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Lee, Yamamoto and Hermansson.
For the above reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues:
Claims 2-6 are patentable because they depend from claim 1 and because of the additional features they recite.
For the above reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining independent and dependent claims are the same as those applied to claims 1 and 2-6. Thus for the reasons stated above, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
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 limitation(s) are:
“…a signal acquiring unit that acquires a rotational frequency signal…” in claim 1;
“…a torque calculating unit that calculates a damping torque…” in claims 1 and 3;
“…a torque adjusting unit that adjust torque…” in claim 2; and
“…an information acquiring unit that acquires angle information…” in claim 3;
Because these claim limitation(s) 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.
In the instant specification the claim limitations will be interpreted in light of pg. 8, lines 8-15, i.e., as software or hardware of a computer system with a CPU and ROM.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0317631 A1, “Lee”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0006004 A1, “Yamamoto”), and in further view of Hermansson et al. (Control of an Electric Vehicle Powertrain to Mitigate Shunt and Shuffle, “Hermansson”).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Lee discloses method and apparatus for vibration damping in a power train system and teaches:
A control apparatus for a rotating electric machine that includes a moving portion that applies torque to a drive shaft of an internal combustion engine, the control apparatus comprising: (FIG . 1 schematically illustrates a vehicle 100 including a powertrain system 20 including an internal combustion engine 40 having a crankshaft 36 that couples to an electrically-powered torque machine (electric machine) 35 via a pulley mechanism 38 that includes a serpentine belt and controlled by a control system 10. The crankshaft 36 of the internal combustion engine 40 also rotatably couples via a torque converter 44 to a transmission 50 that is coupled to a driveline 60 – See at least ¶ [0010])
a processor; (The control system 10 includes control module 12 that communicates to an operator interface 14. The control module 12 preferably communicates with individual elements of the powertrain system 20 either directly or via the communications bus 18 – See at least ¶ [0018] and [0020])
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and (The terms controller, control module, module, control, control unit, processor and similar terms refer to any one or various combinations of Application Specific Integrated Circuit(s) (ASIC), electronic circuit(s), central processing unit(s), e.g., microprocessor(s) and associated non-transitory memory component in the form of memory and storage devices (read only, programmable read only, random access, hard drive, etc.) – See at least ¶ [0020])
a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium that, when read and executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement: (The non-transitory memory component is capable of storing machine readable instructions in the form of one or more software or firmware programs or routines, combinational logic circuit(s), input/output circuit(s) and devices, signal conditioning and buffer circuitry and other components that can be accessed by one or more processors to provide a described functionality – See at least ¶ [0020])
acquiring a rotational frequency signal that is a signal that changes depending on a rotational frequency of the moving portion per unit time; (The torque determination routine 220 is preferably periodically executed at a relatively slow repetition rate, which may be a second period rate having a 2.083 ms repetition rate in one embodiment. Each iteration (222), a virtual inertia term Jvirtual is determined based upon a predetermined calibration that estimates the expected inertial term for the present speed and torque operating point of the electric machine (224) – See at least ¶ [0034]; The torque command incorporates a virtual inertia torque term that accommodates speed ripples on the shaft of the rotor of the electric machine. The speed ripples on the shaft of the rotor of the electric machine 35 reflect a vibration signature related to torque that is transferred through the pulley mechanism 38 between the crank shaft 36 of the engine 40 and the electric machine 35 – See at least ¶ [0033])
calculating a damping torque that is applied from the moving portion to the drive shaft to suppress vibration during operation of the internal combustion engine; (A present value for the estimated motor acceleration rate Aest is determined from the output of the motor speed monitoring routine 200, and a torque compensation term T*cmn is calculated, preferably by multiplying the virtual inertia term Jvirtual and the estimated motor acceleration rate Aest (228) – See at least ¶ [0036])
calculating the damping torque based on an acquired rotational frequency signal in response to the rotating electric machine performing cranking of the internal combustion engine; [] (A final torque command for the electric machine T *em_hcp is determined by combining the motor torque command T*em_hcp and the torque compensation term T*em_cmp (232). The final torque command for the electric machine T*em is communicated to the motor controller for implementation, and this iteration ends (234). As such, the control routine 200 may be employed to reduce noise generation on embodiment of the powertrain system described with reference to FIG.1. Furthermore, latencies associated with determining motor speed and acceleration, and employment thereof related to determining a final torque command for the electric machine may be reduced, thus improving responsiveness – See at least ¶ [0037])
correcting [] the damping torque based on a value of a [] rotational frequency signal and a value of a [] damping torque.
Lee does not explicitly teach calculating the damping torque to have a waveform that is synchronous with a waveform of the rotational frequency signal. However, Yamamoto discloses torque transfer system and teaches:
calculating the damping torque to have a waveform that is synchronous with a waveform of the rotational frequency signal; and (A signal line is provided, e.g., signal line(s) 74 and 75, to generate a stable frequency. This frequency is used as a synchronization signal for the damping torque and the rotational frequency signal as well as the remaining signals used in the method – See at least ¶ [0117]-[0132])
In summary, Lee discloses calculating the damping torque that reduces or eliminates the vibrations caused by the rotational frequencies of the system. Lee does not explicitly teach calculating the damping torque to have a waveform that is synchronous with a waveform of the rotational frequency signal. However, Yamamoto discloses torque transfer system and teaches utilizing a stable frequency signal to synchronize the rotational frequency signal, damping torque signal, and other signals within the system.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and apparatus for vibration damping in a powertrain system of Lee to provide for the torque transfer system, as taught in Yamamoto, to suppress the sound of the torque split mechanism with high accuracy. (At Yamamoto ¶ [0135])
The combination of Lee and Yamamoto does not explicitly teach correcting a phase of the damping torque based on a value of a normalized rotational frequency signal and a value of a normalized damping torque. However, Hermansson discloses control of an electric vehicle powertrain and teaches:
correcting a phase of the damping torque based on a value of a normalized rotational frequency signal and a value of a normalized damping torque. (By using a linear model and the availability of all the states from the estimator, LQR is a good option to go with. The LQR controller developed was based on using the shaft torsion which is the first state in the state vector, i.e. using the QLQR matrix, the shaft torsion was penalized for damping out the oscillations. The QLQR matrix was kept diagonal for ease of penalizing interpretation, a positive large entry was made for the diagonal element in QLQR that will relate to the shaft torsion state and the other diagonal elements were kept to the minimum. The RLQR matrix was a 1[Symbol font/0xB4]1 with value tuned to control the feedback torque value thus defining the controller to be aggressive or not. The elements in the weighting matrices representing the states being controlled and feedback control signal are divided by the square of the assumed peak (or the range of operation) that we expect the controller to limit to. This is done so that the values are normalized thus ensuring no misinterpretation of the penalized terms by the controller during the reduction of the cost function – See at least pg. 30, §4.3 LQR)
In summary, Lee discloses providing a corrected damping torque value based on a rotational signal. The combination of Lee and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose correcting a phase of the damping torque based on a value of a normalized rotational frequency signal and a value of a normalized damping torque. However, Hermansson discloses control of an electric vehicle powertrain teaches dividing the controlled states by the square of the assumed peak in order to create normalized values that prevent misinterpretations by the controller.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and apparatus for vibration damping in a powertrain system of Lee and Yamamoto to provide for the electric vehicle powertrain, as taught in Hermansson, to ensure no misinterpretation by the controller (At Hermansson, pg. 30, §4.3 LQR)
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches:
the moving portion is fixed to the drive shaft. (The electric machine 35 and the internal combustion engine 40 are torque-generating devices. The electric machine 35 includes an output member that mechanically rotatably couples to the crankshaft 36 of the engine 40 via the pulley mechanism 38, which provides a mechanical power path therebetween – See at least ¶ [0011])
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamamoto and Hermansson, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Wu et al. (WO 2018133807 A1. “Wu”, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee, Yamamoto, and Hermansson does not explicitly teach the torque adjusting unit starts to superimpose the damping torque onto the torque of the moving portion at a timing at which the internal combustion engine is started. However, Wu discloses a hybrid electric vehicle and active vibration damping control method and device thereof and teaches:
a torque adjusting unit that adjusts torque of the moving portion, wherein (When the delay time is reached, the first correction current value is applied to the actuator to perform vibration reduction control on the vehicle – See at least ¶ [0100])
the torque adjusting unit starts to superimpose the damping torque onto the torque of the moving portion at a timing at which the internal combustion engine is started. (Finally, the cylinder explosion time of the engine, i.e., the advance or lag amount, is estimated according to the signal waveform output by the camshaft sensor to obtain the delay time of the first correction current value – See at least ¶ [0100])
In summary, Lee discloses adjusting the torque of the moving portion and modulates, i.e., superimposes, the damping torque onto the moving portion in timing with the internal combustion engine. The combination of Lee, Yamamoto, and Hermansson does not explicitly teach that the timing is the timing at which the internal combustion engine is started. However, Wu discloses a hybrid electric vehicle and active vibration damping control method and device thereof and teaches adjusting the damping torque in relation to the cylinder explosion time of the engine, i.e., timing, the process is performed starting with the first cycle of the engine (¶ [0007]) and therefore would also occur at the engine start time.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and apparatus for vibration damping in a power train system of Lee, Yamamoto, and Hermansson to provide for the active vibration damping control method and device thereof, as taught in Wu, to provide an active vibration reduction control method for a hybrid vehicle, which can realize active vibration reduction control of the vehicle under idle charging conditions, has high timeliness, and uses camshaft sensor signals to pre-judge the effective time of vibration reduction and noise reduction control, so that the action time of vibration reduction control is more accurate and the vibration reduction effect is more effective. (At Wu ¶ [0009])
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Lee, Yamamoto, and Hermansson does not explicitly teach, but Wu further teaches:
an information acquiring unit that acquires angle information that is information on an advance amount or a lag amount of the internal combustion engine, wherein (Finally, the cylinder explosion time of the engine, i.e., the advance or lag amount, is estimated according to the signal waveform output by the camshaft sensor to obtain the delay time of the first correction current value – See at least ¶ [0100])
the torque calculating unit corrects the phase of the damping torque based on the angle information. (When the delay time is reached, the first correction current value is applied to the actuator to perform vibration reduction control on the vehicle – See at least ¶ [0100])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and apparatus for vibration damping in a power train system of Lee, Yamamoto, and Hermansson to provide for the active vibration damping control method and device thereof, as taught in Wu, to provide an active vibration reduction control method for a hybrid vehicle, which can realize active vibration reduction control of the vehicle under idle charging conditions, has high timeliness, and uses camshaft sensor signals to pre-judge the effective time of vibration reduction and noise reduction control, so that the action time of vibration reduction control is more accurate and the vibration reduction effect is more effective. (At Wu ¶ [0009])
Regarding claim 5, Lee further teaches:
the moving portion is fixed to the drive shaft. (The electric machine 35 and the internal combustion engine 40 are torque-generating devices. The electric machine 35 includes an output member that mechanically rotatably couples to the crankshaft 36 of the engine 40 via the pulley mechanism 38, which provides a mechanical power path therebetween – See at least ¶ [0011])
Regarding claim 6, Lee further teaches:
the moving portion is fixed to the drive shaft. (The electric machine 35 and the internal combustion engine 40 are torque-generating devices. The electric machine 35 includes an output member that mechanically rotatably couples to the crankshaft 36 of the engine 40 via the pulley mechanism 38, which provides a mechanical power path therebetween – See at least ¶ [0011])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights