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 application filed on April 9th, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed April 9th, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous 112(f) claim interpretation; and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 prior art claim rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9th, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 1, 9, 10, and 20, as set forth on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “claim 1 and 9 have been amended to respectively incorporate some limitations of claims 3 and 1…claims 10 and 20 depend from independent claim 9. Claims 3 and 13 are not rejected only on Oh. Thus, this anticipation rejection is believed to be overcome”.
As to point (a), Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO2020214941 (hereinafter, “Rippelmeyer”).
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 2, 11, and 12, as set forth on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “claim 2 depends from independent claim 1, and claims 11 and 12 depend from independent claim 9. The deficiencies of the teaching of Oh are noted above with respect to claims 1 and 9. Tashiro fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so. For at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 9, the combination of Oh and Tashiro fails to render obvious claims 1 and 9 and thus corresponding dependent claims 2, 11, and 12”.
As to point (b), Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO2020214941 (hereinafter, “Rippelmeyer”).
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 3, 4, 6-8, 13, 14, and 16-19, as set forth on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “claim 3 and 13 have been canceled herein, and their limitations have been incorporated into claims 1 and 9. Thus this rejection is now applicable to claims 1 and 9 and corresponding dependent claims 4, 6-8, 14, and 16-19...Oh fails to teach or suggest “maintaining the motor torque command at the preset neutral torque until the current virtual engine speed reaches a synchronous speed of a target virtual gear stage” as recited by claim 1…the torque behavior from point A to point B in Lee corresponds to the neutral torque of the instant application. See Lee FIG. 2. However, the immediate decrease at point C in Lee does not correspond to maintaining the neutral torque for a certain period until reaching a synchronous speed…Lee is silent on intentionally maintaining the torque at a specific value to implement a neutral coasting feel. Lee is silent on transitioning the torque to a preset neutral torque; maintaining it for a certain period to maximize the feeling of power disconnection, and determining the maintenance duration in synchronization with the timing of the virtual engine speed reaching the target synchronous speed”.
As to point (c), Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO2020214941 (hereinafter, “Rippelmeyer”).
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 5 and 15, as set forth on page 12 of Applicant’s remarks, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “claim 5 depends from independent claim 1, and claim 15 depends from independent claim 9. The deficiencies in the teachings of Oh and Lee are noted above with respect to claims 1 and 9. Benedikt fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so. For at least the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 9, the combination of Oh, Lee and Benedikt fails to render obvious claims 1 and 9 and thus corresponding dependent claims 5 and 15.
As to point (d), see points (a-c).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210387529 (hereinafter, “Oh”), in view of WO2020214941 (hereinafter, “Rippelmeyer”).
Regarding claim 1 Oh discloses a method of controlling virtual gear shift for an electric vehicle (see at least [abstract]; “a method for controlling traveling of an electric vehicle is provided. The method includes generating a motor torque commands using a basic torque command and a virtual gear-shift intervention torque for generating a feeling of real gear shifting, while an electric vehicle travels”), the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, whether a vehicle driving state of the electric vehicle corresponds to a predetermined power-off condition (see at least [0115]; “In addition, in calculating the virtual gear-shift intervention torque command, the virtual gear-shift intervention torque should differ in shape according to a type of transmission and a gear-shift class. Types of transmissions include an automatic transmission (AT), a dual clutch transmission (DCT), an automated manual transmission (AMT), and the like. In addition, gear-shift classes include power-on upshift, power-off up shift (lift-foot-up), power-on downshift (kick-down), power-off downshift, and near-stop downshift”);
determining, by the controller, in response to a determination that the vehicle driving state corresponds to the predetermined power-off condition (see at least [0115]; “In addition, in calculating the virtual gear-shift intervention torque command, the virtual gear-shift intervention torque should differ in shape according to a type of transmission and a gear-shift class. Types of transmissions include an automatic transmission (AT), a dual clutch transmission (DCT), an automated manual transmission (AMT), and the like. In addition, gear-shift classes include power-on upshift, power-off up shift (lift-foot-up), power-on downshift (kick-down), power-off downshift, and near-stop downshift,” and [0117]; “In addition, when the basic torque command is greater than a preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-on. Conversely, when the basic torque command is greater than the preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-off.”), a coasting torque corresponding to a current virtual gear stage, and a current virtual engine speed (see at least [0117]; “when the current gear-shift class is determined based on the virtual current gear-shift step, the virtual target gear-shift step, and the like, a virtual gear-shift intervention torque profile corresponding to the current gear-shift class is selected from among the virtual gear-shift intervention torque profiles for gear-shift classes. The virtual gear-shift intervention torque for generating the feeling of real gear shifting may be determined in real time according to the selected virtual gear-shift intervention torque profile,” the intervention torque when the vehicle is in a state of power-off is the coasting torque, and [0119]; “A magnitude of the virtual gear-shift intervention torque may be set to be adjusted using as torque magnitude setting variables the virtual engine speed (OmegaVir),”);
generating, by the controller, a motor torque command (see at least [0122]; “The method of controlling traveling of an electric vehicle according to the present disclosure may include: generating a motor torque command using a basic torque command and a virtual gear-shift intervention torque for generating a feeling of real gear shifting, while an electric vehicle is being driven; and operating a motor for driving the electric vehicle, according to the generated motor torque command and thus generating the feeling of real gear shifting,”); and
controlling a regenerative operation of a motor configured to drive the electric vehicle according to the generated motor torque command (see at least [0105]; “When coasting and when regenerating, the torque command is limited to the value of the limit torque (tqLmt) for the regeneration direction,” the regeneration is controlled based in part on the generated motor torque command).
Oh, does not teach in response to a downshift request, transitioning the motor torque command from the coasting torque of the current virtual gear stage to a preset neutral torque, and maintaining the motor torque command at the preset neutral torque until the current virtual engine speed reaches a synchronous speed of a target virtual gear stage.
Rippelmeyer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to a downshift request, transitioning the motor torque command from the coasting torque of the current virtual gear stage to a preset neutral torque, and maintaining the motor torque command at the preset neutral torque until the current virtual engine speed reaches a synchronous speed of a target virtual gear stage (see at least [Page 13, lines 1-7]; “A gear shift may be accomplished by speed synchronizing between the motor(s) speed and vehicle speed as perceived by the oncoming gear dog clutch. Both motors are used to synchronize this speed enabling faster overall shifts times. Also, a backlash relationship must be maintained not only when the vehicle is in gear, but also during a gear shift. During gear shift, the transmission must go to neutral (zero torque) in between each gear. While in neutral, each motor changes its speed so that when the new gear is engaged, it is at the correct speed relationship relative to the new gear and the vehicle speed” during the process of shifting gears which is the process of reaching the synchronous speed, the torque is maintained at zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh with the neutral torque of Rippelmeyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing the correct speed relationship to already be reached when the new gear is engaged (see Rippelmeyer; [Page 14, lines 1-10]).
Regarding claim 9 Oh discloses a virtual gear shift control apparatus for an electric vehicle (see at least [0042]; “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a device for control traveling of an electric vehicle according to the present disclosure and illustrates a configuration of a device that performs the control for the feeling of real gear shifting and the boost control.”), the apparatus comprising:
a driving information detector configured to detect information indicating a vehicle driving state (see at least [0047]; “a device for control according to the present disclosure may include a driving information detection unit 12 configured to detect vehicle driving information,” and [0047]; “the vehicle driving information here may include driver’s driving input information and vehicle state information”); and
a controller configured to generate a motor torque command for satisfying a driver’s demand torque based on vehicle driving information including the information detected by the driving information detector (see at least [0047]; “The driving information detection unit 12 may be configured to detect vehicle driving information necessary to generate the motor torque command in the electric vehicle. The vehicle driving information here may include driver's driving input information and vehicle state information.,” the driver’s driving input information corresponds to Applicant’s driver’s demand torque),
determine whether the vehicle driving state of the electric vehicle corresponds to a predetermined power-off condition (see at least [0115]; “In addition, in calculating the virtual gear-shift intervention torque command, the virtual gear-shift intervention torque should differ in shape according to a type of transmission and a gear-shift class. Types of transmissions include an automatic transmission (AT), a dual clutch transmission (DCT), an automated manual transmission (AMT), and the like. In addition, gear-shift classes include power-on upshift, power-off up shift (lift-foot-up), power-on downshift (kick-down), power-off downshift, and near-stop downshift”),
determine, in response to a determination that the vehicle driving state corresponds to the predetermined power-off condition (see at least [0115]; “In addition, in calculating the virtual gear-shift intervention torque command, the virtual gear-shift intervention torque should differ in shape according to a type of transmission and a gear-shift class. Types of transmissions include an automatic transmission (AT), a dual clutch transmission (DCT), an automated manual transmission (AMT), and the like. In addition, gear-shift classes include power-on upshift, power-off up shift (lift-foot-up), power-on downshift (kick-down), power-off downshift, and near-stop downshift,” and [0117]; “In addition, when the basic torque command is greater than a preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-on. Conversely, when the basic torque command is greater than the preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-off.”), a coasting torque corresponding to a current virtual gear stage and a current virtual engine speed (see at least [0117]; “when the current gear-shift class is determined based on the virtual current gear-shift step, the virtual target gear-shift step, and the like, a virtual gear-shift intervention torque profile corresponding to the current gear-shift class is selected from among the virtual gear-shift intervention torque profiles for gear-shift classes. The virtual gear-shift intervention torque for generating the feeling of real gear shifting may be determined in real time according to the selected virtual gear-shift intervention torque profile,” the intervention torque when the vehicle is in a state of power-off downshift is the coasting torque, and [0119]; “A magnitude of the virtual gear-shift intervention torque may be set to be adjusted using as torque magnitude setting variables the virtual engine speed (OmegaVir),”),
generate a motor torque command using the determined coasting torque as a command value (see at least [0122]; “The method of controlling traveling of an electric vehicle according to the present disclosure may include: generating a motor torque command using a basic torque command and a virtual gear-shift intervention torque for generating a feeling of real gear shifting, while an electric vehicle is being driven; and operating a motor for driving the electric vehicle, according to the generated motor torque command and thus generating the feeling of real gear shifting,”),
in response to a downshift request, transitioning the motor torque command from the coasting torque of the current virtual gear stage to a preset neutral torque, and maintaining the motor torque command at the preset neutral torque until the current virtual engine speed reaches a synchronous speed of a target virtual gear stage; and
control a regenerative operation of a motor that drives the electric vehicle according to the generated motor torque command (see at least [0105]; “When coasting and when regenerating, the torque command is limited to the value of the limit torque (tqLmt) for the regeneration direction,” the regeneration is controlled based in part on the generated torque command).
Oh, does not teach in response to a downshift request, generate the motor torque command by transitioning the motor torque command from the coasting torque of the current virtual gear stage to a preset neutral torque, and maintaining the motor torque command at the preset neutral torque until the current virtual engine speed reaches a synchronous speed of a target virtual gear stage.
Rippelmeyer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to a downshift request, generate the motor torque command by transitioning the motor torque command from the coasting torque of the current virtual gear stage to a preset neutral torque, and maintaining the motor torque command at the preset neutral torque until the current virtual engine speed reaches a synchronous speed of a target virtual gear stage (see at least [Page 13, lines 1-7]; “A gear shift may be accomplished by speed synchronizing between the motor(s) speed and vehicle speed as perceived by the oncoming gear dog clutch. Both motors are used to synchronize this speed enabling faster overall shifts times. Also, a backlash relationship must be maintained not only when the vehicle is in gear, but also during a gear shift. During gear shift, the transmission must go to neutral (zero torque) in between each gear. While in neutral, each motor changes its speed so that when the new gear is engaged, it is at the correct speed relationship relative to the new gear and the vehicle speed” during the process of shifting gears which is the process of reaching the synchronous speed, the torque is maintained at zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh with the neutral torque of Rippelmeyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing the correct speed relationship to already be reached when the new gear is engaged (see Rippelmeyer; [Page 14, lines 1-10]).
Regarding claim 10 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Oh discloses wherein the predetermined power-off condition is a condition that the driver’s demand torque is equal to or less than a preset reference value (see at least [0115]; “In addition, in calculating the virtual gear-shift intervention torque command, the virtual gear-shift intervention torque should differ in shape according to a type of transmission and a gear-shift class. Types of transmissions include an automatic transmission (AT), a dual clutch transmission (DCT), an automated manual transmission (AMT), and the like. In addition, gear-shift classes include power-on upshift, power-off up shift (lift-foot-up), power-on downshift (kick-down), power-off downshift, and near-stop downshift,” and [0117]; “In addition, when the basic torque command is greater than a preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-on. Conversely, when the basic torque command is greater than the preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-off,” the prior art of Oh has a typo in paragraph 117 but in light of the specification, and to a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is clear that when the basic torque command is not greater than the preset reference torque value, this is the case for power-off).
Regarding claim 20 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Oh discloses wherein the current virtual engine speed is determined as a value proportional to a value obtained by multiplying a current vehicle speed by a virtual gear ratio corresponding to a current virtual gear shift stage, by the controller (see at least [0087]; “the virtual engine speed (OmegaCur) may be obtained from a value that results from multiplying the virtual vehicle speed (SpdVir) and the virtual gear ratio (rGi) for the virtual current gear-shift step together”).
Claim(s) 2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of US-20190168732 (hereinafter, “Tashiro”).
Regarding claim 2 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Oh, does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine an engine friction torque corresponding to the current virtual engine speed using setting data with a virtual engine speed as an input; and
determine the coasting torque as a negative torque value obtained by multiplying the determined engine friction torque by a gear ratio of the current virtual gear stage and a final reduction gear ratio.
Tashiro, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the coasting torque comprises:
determining an engine friction torque corresponding to the current virtual engine speed using setting data with a virtual engine speed as an input (see at least [0057]; “a relationship between engine speed and engine friction upon fuel cut is calculated beforehand, and by inputting the engine speed during engine braking, the engine braking torque calculation unit calculates an engine friction torque”); and
determining the coasting torque as a negative torque value obtained by multiplying the determined engine friction torque by a gear ratio of the current virtual gear stage and a final reduction gear ratio (see at least [0063]; “the load applied to the wheels during engine braking is calculated as the product of the friction torque of the engine, the gear ratio of a CVT, and the gear ratio of the final reduction gear,” the load applied to the wheels corresponds to the coasting torque and is negative because the vehicle is braking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer with the torque formulas of Tashiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing poor driving performance due to variations in engine speed (see at least Tashiro; [0009]).
Regarding claim 11 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Oh, does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine an engine friction torque corresponding to the current virtual engine speed using setting data with a virtual engine speed as an input; and
determine the coasting torque as a negative torque value obtained by multiplying the determined engine friction torque by a gear ratio of the current virtual gear stage and a final reduction gear ratio.
Tashiro, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine an engine friction torque corresponding to the current virtual engine speed using setting data with a virtual engine speed as an input (see at least [0057]; “a relationship between engine speed and engine friction upon fuel cut is calculated beforehand, and by inputting the engine speed during engine braking, the engine braking torque calculation unit calculates an engine friction torque”); and
determine the coasting torque as a negative torque value obtained by multiplying the determined engine friction torque by a gear ratio of the current virtual gear stage and a final reduction gear ratio (see at least [0063]; “the load applied to the wheels during engine braking is calculated as the product of the friction torque of the engine, the gear ratio of a CVT, and the gear ratio of the final reduction gear,” the load applied to the wheels corresponds to the coasting torque and is negative because the vehicle is braking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer with the torque formulas of Tashiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing poor driving performance due to variations in engine speed (see at least Tashiro; [0009]).
Regarding claim 12 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Tashiro renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Tashiro, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the setting data is a function or a map that defines a relationship between the virtual engine speed and the engine friction torque (see at least [0057]; “a relationship between engine speed and engine friction upon fuel cut is calculated beforehand, and by inputting the engine speed during engine braking, the engine braking torque calculation unit calculates an engine friction torque,” the relationship between friction torque and engine speed is defined by a function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer with the torque formulas of Tashiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing poor driving performance due to variations in engine speed (see at least Tashiro; [0009]).
Claim(s) 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Rippelmeyer as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20200318731 (hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Oh, does not teach further comprising performing a power-off downshift control process,
wherein performing the power-off downshift control process further comprises: entering, by the controller, a shift preparation section in which the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage before shifting and the current virtual engine speed that is a real-time speed is determined during a first maintenance time after the power-off downshift control process starts; and
entering, by the controller, the actual shift section after the shift preparation section ends during the first maintenance time.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising performing a power-off downshift control process,
wherein performing the power-off downshift control process further comprises: entering, by the controller, a shift preparation section in which the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage before shifting and the current virtual engine speed that is a real-time speed is determined during a first maintenance time after the power-off downshift control process starts (see at least Fig. 2, the torque for the phase before shifting begins is obtained, this occurs during a time after the shift request has been determined but before the shift actually occurs as the initial torque is needed to determine the torque for the target stage, applicant does not provide a definition for a maintenance time or its length, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting a maintenance time as any time or length of time that occurs after the control process starts); and
entering, by the controller, the actual shift section after the shift preparation section ends during the first maintenance time (see at least [0072]; “As described above, in response to determining as a situation where the power-off downshift is requested, the shift control for the power-off downshift may be started at a time point A in FIG. 6, and the torque phase control may be started in the shift control procedure. In the present disclosure, a condition in which the downshift operation of the driver is performed during coasting of the vehicle and the shift stage selected by the downshift operation is shiftable shift stage is a shift procedure entry condition of the present disclosure, as described above, and specifically, is also an entry condition of the torque phase control,” once the entry conditions have been met the shift control may begin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer with the power-off downshifting process of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making it possible to generate the desired vehicle deceleration without occurring the vehicle acceleration feeling, and to achieve shortening of the shift time and enhancement of the driving performance (see at least Lee; [0026]).
Regarding claim 6 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Oh, does not teach further comprising performing a power-off downshift control process,
wherein performing the power-off downshift control process further comprises:
entering, by the controller, a shift end-stage engagement control section that increases a virtual engine speed to the synchronous speed in the virtual gear stage after shifting, after an actual shift section ends; and
simultaneously decreasing, by the controller, the coasting torque from the preset neutral torque to the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage after shifting.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising performing a power-off downshift control process,
wherein performing the power-off downshift control process further comprises:
entering, by the controller, a shift end-stage engagement control section that increases a virtual engine speed to the synchronous speed in the virtual gear stage after shifting, after an actual shift section ends (see at least [0025]; “adjusting a motor speed so that a transmission input shaft rotary speed reaches a predetermined target stage synchronization speed of a target stage after shifting,”); and
simultaneously decreasing, by the controller, the coasting torque from the preset neutral torque to the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage after shifting (see at least Fig. 2, the torque is decreased from 0 to a negative torque value for coasting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer with the power-off downshifting process of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making it possible to generate the desired vehicle deceleration without occurring the vehicle acceleration feeling, and to achieve shortening of the shift time and enhancement of the driving performance (see at least Lee; [0026]).
Regarding claim 7 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Lee renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Oh discloses further comprising: during the actual shift section, determining, by the controller, a shift progress from the current virtual engine speed (see at least [0085]; “In other words, when the changed virtual target gear-shift step is determined, the controller may be configured to count the time from a point in time at which the delay time elapsed after the virtual target gear-shift step was determined. Then, the controller may be configured to determine the virtual gear-shift progress ratio”);
terminating, by the controller, in a case where the shift progress becomes a set value, the actual shift section (see at least [0093]; “when the gear-shift completion condition is satisfied after the gear shifting starts, the virtual current gear-shift step (CUrGe) that is at work before the satisfaction is substituted for the virtual target gear-shift step (TarGe)”); and
entering, by the controller, the shift end-stage engagement control section (see at least [0100]; “At this point, regarding the "condition that the value of the virtual gear-shift progress ratio (xProgress) is reset to 0%", in a case where a control logic is configured in such a manner that the virtual gear-shift progress ratio reaches 100% and then is immediately reset to 0%,”).
Regarding claim 8 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Lee renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Oh discloses further comprising: determining, by the controller, the shift progress using an Equation E1:
Shift progress (%) = {(current virtual engine speed – first speed) / (third speed – first speed)} X 100 (see at least [0086]; “the virtual gearshift progress ratio may be determined as a percentage of a
speed difference between the real-time virtual engine speed (Omega Vir), which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting, and the target input speed (OmegaCur) based on the virtual current gear-shift step with respect to a speed difference between the target input speed (OmegaTar) based
on the virtual target gear-shift step and the target input speed (OmegaCur) based on the virtual current gear-shift step, which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting”)
wherein the first speed is a virtual engine speed at the time of entering the actual shift section (see at least [0086]; “the target input speed (OmegaCur) based on the virtual current gear-shift step, which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting”), the third speed is the synchronous speed of the virtual gear stage after shifting and is a virtual engine speed corresponding to a current vehicle speed and the virtual gear stage after shifting (see at least [0086]; “the target input speed (OmegaTar) based on the virtual target gear-shift step”), and the current virtual engine speed is a real-time speed (see at least [0086]; “the real-time virtual engine speed (Omega Vir), which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting”).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh and Rippelmeyer as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20210206254 (hereinafter, “Benedikt”).
Regarding claim 5 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Oh, does not disclose further comprising: when entering the actual shift section, increasing, by the controller, a virtual engine speed at the time of entering the actual shift section with a slope for engine rev-matching control.
Benedikt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: when entering the actual shift section, increasing, by the controller, a virtual engine speed at the time of entering the actual shift section (see at least [0066]; “When the HEY 100 reaches a simulated shift point and the driver applies enough brake pressure to activate an automatic downshift, the engine speed is increased, following the fifth simulated gear 290A5”) with a slope for engine rev-matching control (see at least [0072]; “In such embodiments, for example, a higher target engine speed 206 may be implemented for a lower gear ratio than for a higher gear ratio, i.e., engine speed should increase after a downshift in a conventional, manual transmission car, and it is during this scenario when rev-matching may be performed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer with the rev-matching control of Benedikt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding the mechanical shock that would result from mismatch between engine and gear speeds (see at least Benedikt [0026]).
Claim(s) 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Tashiro as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of US-20200318731 (hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 14 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Tashiro renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 11. Oh, does not teach wherein, when performing the power-off downshift control process, the controller is further configured to: enter a shift preparation section in which the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage before shifting and the current virtual engine speed that is a real-time speed is determined during a first maintenance time after the power-off downshift control process starts,
enter an actual shift section after the shift preparation section ends during the first maintenance time.
Additionally, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, when performing the power-off downshift control process, the controller is further configured to: enter a shift preparation section in which the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage before shifting and the current virtual engine speed that is a real-time speed is determined during a first maintenance time after the power-off downshift control process starts (see at least Fig. 2, the torque for the phase before shifting begins is obtained, this occurs during a time after the shift request has been determined but before the shift actually occurs as the initial torque is needed to determine the torque for the target stage, applicant does not provide a definition for a maintenance time or its length, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting a maintenance time as any time or length of time that occurs after the control process starts); and
enter an actual shift section after the shift preparation section ends during the first maintenance time (see at least [0072]; “As described above, in response to determining as a situation where the power-off downshift is requested, the shift control for the power-off downshift may be started at a time point A in FIG. 6, and the torque phase control may be started in the shift control procedure. In the present disclosure, a condition in which the downshift operation of the driver is performed during coasting of the vehicle and the shift stage selected by the downshift operation is shiftable shift stage is a shift procedure entry condition of the present disclosure, as described above, and specifically, is also an entry condition of the torque phase control,” once the entry conditions have been met the shift control may begin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer and Tashiro with the power-off downshifting process of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making it possible to generate the desired vehicle deceleration without occurring the vehicle acceleration feeling, and to achieve shortening of the shift time and enhancement of the driving performance (see at least Lee; [0026]).
Regarding claim 16 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Tashiro renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 11. Oh, does not teach wherein, when performing the power-off downshift control process, the controller is further configured to:
enter a shift end-stage engagement control section that increases a virtual engine speed to the synchronous speed in the virtual gear stage after shifting, after an actual shift section ends; and
simultaneously decrease the coasting torque from the preset neutral torque to the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage after shifting.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, when performing the power-off downshift control process, the controller is further configured to:
enter a shift end-stage engagement control section that increases a virtual engine speed to the synchronous speed in the virtual gear stage after shifting, after an actual shift section ends (see at least [0025]; “adjusting a motor speed so that a transmission input shaft rotary speed reaches a predetermined target stage synchronization speed of a target stage after shifting,”); and
simultaneously decrease the coasting torque from the preset neutral torque to the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage after shifting (see at least Fig. 2, the torque is decreased from 0 to a negative torque value for coasting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer and Tashiro with the power-off downshifting process of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making it possible to generate the desired vehicle deceleration without occurring the vehicle acceleration feeling, and to achieve shortening of the shift time and enhancement of the driving performance (see at least Lee; [0026]).
Regarding claim 17 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer, Tashiro, and Lee renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 16. Additionally, Oh discloses wherein, during the actual shift section, the controller is further configured to: determine a shift progress from the current virtual engine speed (see at least [0085]; “In other words, when the changed virtual target gear-shift step is determined, the controller may be configured to count the time from a point in time at which the delay time elapsed after the virtual target gear-shift step was determined. Then, the controller may be configured to determine the virtual gear-shift progress ratio”); terminate, in a case where the shift progress becomes a set value (see at least [0093]; “when the gear-shift completion condition is satisfied after the gear shifting starts, the virtual current gear-shift step (CUrGe) that is at work before the satisfaction is substituted for the virtual target gear-shift step (TarGe)”), the actual shift section; and enter the shift end-stage engagement control section (see at least [0100]; “At this point, regarding the "condition that the value of the virtual gear-shift progress ratio (progress) is reset to 0%", in a case where a control logic is configured in such a manner that the virtual gear-shift progress ratio reaches 100% and then is immediately reset to 0%,”).
Regarding claim 18 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer, Tashiro, and Lee renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Oh discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the shift progress using an Equation E1:
Shift progress (%) = {(current virtual engine speed – first speed) / (third speed – first speed)} X 100 (see at least [0086]; “the virtual gearshift progress ratio may be determined as a percentage of a speed difference between the real-time virtual engine speed (Omega Vir), which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting, and the target input speed (OmegaCur) based on the virtual current gear-shift step with respect to a speed difference between the target input speed (OmegaTar) based on the virtual target gear-shift step and the target input speed (OmegaCur) based on the virtual current gear-shift step, which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting”)
wherein the first speed is a virtual engine speed at the time of entering the actual shift section (see at least [0086]; “the target input speed (OmegaCur) based on the virtual current gear-shift step, which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting”), the third speed is the synchronous speed of the virtual gear stage after shifting and is a virtual engine speed corresponding to a current vehicle speed and the virtual gear stage after shifting (see at least [0086]; “the target input speed (OmegaTar) based on the virtual target gear-shift step”), and the current virtual engine speed is a real-time speed (see at least [0086]; “the real-time virtual engine speed (Omega Vir), which occurs during the process of performing gear shifting”).
Regarding claim 19 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer, Tashiro, and Lee renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 16. Additionally, Oh discloses wherein, when performing the power-off downshift control process, the controller is further configured to perform a shift end section in which the coasting torque corresponding to the virtual gear stage after shifting and the current virtual engine speed that is a real-time speed is determined, during a second maintenance time after the shift end-stage engagement control section ends (see at least fig. 2; a torque is determined after the shift ends as shown by fig. 2, examiner is interpreting the second maintenance time as merely being any moment and any length of time occurring after the shift end-stage engagement control section ends.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Tashiro as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20210206254 (hereinafter, “Benedikt”).
Regarding claim 15 Oh in view of Rippelmeyer and Tashiro renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 11. Oh, does not disclose when entering the actual shift section, the controller is further configured to increase a virtual engine speed at the time of entering the actual shift section with a slope for engine rev-matching control.
Benedikt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when entering the actual shift section, the controller is further configured to increase a virtual engine speed at the time of entering the actual shift section (see at least [0066]; “When the HEY 100 reaches a simulated shift point and the driver applies enough brake pressure to activate an automatic downshift, the engine speed is increased, following the fifth simulated gear 290A5”) with a slope for engine rev-matching control (see at least [0072]; “In such embodiments, for example, a higher target engine speed 206 may be implemented for a lower gear ratio than for a higher gear ratio, i.e., engine speed should increase after a downshift in a conventional, manual transmission car, and it is during this scenario when rev-matching may be performed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the gear shifting system of Oh as modified by Rippelmeyer and Tashiro with the rev-matching control of Benedikt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding the mechanical shock that would result from mismatch between engine and gear speeds (see at least Benedikt [0026]).
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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/23/26
Prosecution Insights