DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims dated 08/04/2024 are being examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text and lines/block diagrams in all the Figures are blurry and/or the text in these Figures are illegible. For example, FIGS. 1-2 and 4-5 appear to show block diagrams but the lines are broken, missing, and/or blurry. FIG. 3A and 3B appears to show some kind of curve, but parts of the curve are blurry and/or missing. The numbers and letters inside the drawings are not clear.
Even with corrections of the above issues, the drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the structural details, i.e., interconnections of the steps, as described in the specification. For example, FIGS. 1-2 merely show block diagrams using generic symbols but lack any relevant text that would provide a proper understanding of the interconnections between the generic symbols, i.e. what is being determined in the decision/step blocks and what values are being set in the other blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of properly understanding the processes/methods as described in the claim(s) and specification from viewing the drawings. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: “the slope of a vehicle torque request” should be introduced as “a slope of a vehicle torque request” as this is the first time this limitation is introduced in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation “the torque reduction step length scheme”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what this limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as the torque reduction commands.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected, because of its dependency on rejected claim 2, and for reciting “the torque reduction step length” which has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, line 2 states a plurality of torque increase commands are sent during the torque “reduction” phase. It is not clear if this should actually be referring to a torque “increase” phase or is trying to further define the torque reduction phase. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as commands sent during a torque increase phase.
Regarding claim 6, claim 2 recites the limitations “the torque increase step length scheme” and “the current gear position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear what these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as the torque increase commands and a current gear position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed towards a computer-readable storage medium (CSRM), however, the specification does not limit the term to explicitly exclude signals, carrier waves, or other transitory signals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particular when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). The Examiner suggests to state that the “computer readable storage medium” is non-transitory to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US-20210237740-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Watanabe.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a method for torque control of a drive motor during gear shifts, comprising:
sending a plurality of torque reduction commands to a motor control unit during a torque reduction phase of a gear shift, of which each of the plurality of torque reduction commands has different step lengths (FIG. 8 torque reduction rate commands during varying time periods P1, P2, and P3; [0077] In an example shown in FIG. 8, the reduction rates of the output torque Tmg from the rotating electrical machine MG in a start period P1 and an end period P3 of a period during which the torque reduction control is performed are smaller than the reduction rate of the output torque Tmg from the rotating electrical machine MG in a middle period P2 between the start period P1 and the end period P3 of the period during which the torque reduction control is performed),
wherein, during an initial period of the torque reduction phase, a torque reduction slope gradually increases (FIG. 8 during time period P1 and first half of P2), and during an end period of the torque reduction phase, the torque reduction slope gradually decreases (FIG. 8 following time period until the end of P3; [0077] In the example shown in FIG. 8, in the start period P1 the reduction rate (the reduction rate of the output torque Tmg from the rotating electrical machine MG, the same applies hereinafter) increases with the passage of time, in the middle period P2 the reduction rate is maintained at a constant level, and in the end period P3 the reduction rate decreases with the passage of time).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches the method according to claim 1.
Watanabe also teaches wherein: in the torque reduction phase, the torque reduction step length scheme is determined based on a current gear position (FIG. 6 determined to perform upshifting? #01).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe teaches the method according to claim 4.
Watanabe also teaches wherein: in the torque increase phase, the torque increase step length scheme is determined based on the current gear position (FIG. 7 torque reduction t0-t1 and torque increase t2- t3 based on gear position 1 to 2; FIG. 6 determined to perform upshifting? #01).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe also teaches a transmission control unit comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions, and when the computer program instructions are executed by the processor, the processor is capable of executing the method according to claim 1 ([0026] The control device 3 includes, as a core member, an arithmetic processing device such as a central processing unit (CPU) and includes storage devices that can be referred to by the arithmetic processing device, such as a random access memory (RAM) and a read only memory (ROM). Each function of the control device 3 is implemented by software (programs) stored in a storage device such as the ROM, hardware such as an arithmetic circuit provided separately, or both of them. The arithmetic processing device included in the control device 3 operates as a computer that executes each program. The control device 3 may include a set of a plurality of pieces of hardware (a plurality of separated pieces of hardware) that can communicate with each other).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe also teaches a computer program product comprising computer program instructions, wherein when the computer program instructions are executed by a processor, the processor is capable of executing the method according to claim 1 ([0026] The control device 3 includes, as a core member, an arithmetic processing device such as a central processing unit (CPU) and includes storage devices that can be referred to by the arithmetic processing device, such as a random access memory (RAM) and a read only memory (ROM). Each function of the control device 3 is implemented by software (programs) stored in a storage device such as the ROM, hardware such as an arithmetic circuit provided separately, or both of them. The arithmetic processing device included in the control device 3 operates as a computer that executes each program. The control device 3 may include a set of a plurality of pieces of hardware (a plurality of separated pieces of hardware) that can communicate with each other).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe also teaches a computer-readable storage medium, wherein: the computer-readable storage medium stores instructions, and when the instructions are executed by a processor, the processor is capable of executing the method according to claim 1 ([0026] The control device 3 includes, as a core member, an arithmetic processing device such as a central processing unit (CPU) and includes storage devices that can be referred to by the arithmetic processing device, such as a random access memory (RAM) and a read only memory (ROM). Each function of the control device 3 is implemented by software (programs) stored in a storage device such as the ROM, hardware such as an arithmetic circuit provided separately, or both of them. The arithmetic processing device included in the control device 3 operates as a computer that executes each program. The control device 3 may include a set of a plurality of pieces of hardware (a plurality of separated pieces of hardware) that can communicate with each other).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches the method according to claim 1.
Watanabe also teaches wherein: a plurality of torque increase commands are sent to the motor control unit during the torque reduction phase of a gear shift ([0074] the torque increase control starts at a point in time when the torque phase Pt starts (time t1 in FIG. 7) and the torque increase control ends at a point in time when the torque phase Pt ends (time t2 in FIG. 7)).
Watanabe FIG. 8 does not explicitly show the same curve on the increase side, so Watanabe does not explicitly teach, of which each of the plurality of torque increase commands has different step lengths, wherein, during an initial period of a torque increase phase, a torque increase slope gradually increases, and during an end period of the torque increase phase, the torque increase slope gradually decreases.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Watanabe to follow the same kind of curve that is followed from t0 to t1 (torque decrease in FIG. 8) to also from t1 to t2 (torque increase) with a reasonable expectation of success such that each of the plurality of torque increase commands has different step lengths, wherein, during an initial period of a torque increase phase, a torque increase slope gradually increases, and during an end period of the torque increase phase, the torque increase slope gradually decreases since doing so would have achieved the benefit of smoothing the torque control so that “a change in vehicle behavior sensed by the occupant of the vehicle can be suppressed to a smaller level” (Watanabe [0077]).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Darnell et al. (US-20140372012-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Darnell.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe teaches the method according to claim 2.
Watanabe suggests in [0030]-[0032], but Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein: in the torque reduction phase, the torque reduction step length indicated by the torque reduction commands is determined based on at least a current torque of the drive motor and a pedal signal look-up table.
However, Darnell teaches wherein: in the torque reduction phase, the torque reduction step length indicated by the torque reduction commands is determined based on at least a current torque of the drive motor and a pedal signal look-up table ([0103] Furthermore, in this embodiment, at each time interval calculation, the system is required to know only the current torque output, the target or requested torque output, and the degree of completion of the blend of pedal progression maps, in order to calculate the next torque output).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the consideration of accelerator pedal taught in Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Brockley to include wherein: in the torque reduction phase, the torque reduction step length indicated by the torque reduction commands is determined based on at least a current torque of the drive motor and a pedal signal look-up table, with a reasonable expectation of success “to improve vehicle performance and to assist the driver to deliver abrupt or smooth acceleration and deceleration depending on the prevailing conditions” (Darnell [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches the method according to claim 4.
Watanabe suggests in [0030]-[0032], but Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein: in the torque increase phase, the torque increase step length indicated by the torque increase commands is determined based on at least a current torque of the drive motor and a pedal signal look-up table.
However, Darnell teaches wherein: in the torque increase phase, the torque increase step length indicated by the torque increase commands is determined based on at least a current torque of the drive motor and a pedal signal look-up table ([0103] Furthermore, in this embodiment, at each time interval calculation, the system is required to know only the current torque output, the target or requested torque output, and the degree of completion of the blend of pedal progression maps, in order to calculate the next torque output).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the consideration of accelerator pedal taught in Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Brockley to include wherein: in the torque increase phase, the torque increase step length indicated by the torque increase commands is determined based on at least a current torque of the drive motor and a pedal signal look-up table, with a reasonable expectation of success “to improve vehicle performance and to assist the driver to deliver abrupt or smooth acceleration and deceleration depending on the prevailing conditions” (Darnell [0018]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Jeong et al. (US-20210387610-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Jeong.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches the method according to claim 1.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein: at a start time point of the torque reduction phase, an absolute value of the torque reduction slope indicated by the torque reduction commands sent to the motor control unit is consistent with the slope of a vehicle torque request, and at an end time point of the torque increase phase, the torque increase slope indicated by the torque increase commands sent to the motor control unit is consistent with the slope of the vehicle torque request.
However, Jeong teaches wherein: at a start time point of the torque reduction phase, an absolute value of the torque reduction slope indicated by the torque reduction commands sent to the motor control unit is consistent with the slope of a vehicle torque request, and at an end time point of the torque increase phase, the torque increase slope indicated by the torque increase commands sent to the motor control unit is consistent with the slope of the vehicle torque request (FIG. 2; [0015] The motor torque intervention control map is a table in which a motor torque control amount and a motor torque control slope are defined for each shift phase and each engine torque with respect to each shift case; [0047] Herein, the engine torque reduction control map may include information about engine torque reduction amount (% or Nm) and engine torque reduction slope (%/s or Nm/s) for each shift phase associated with each shift case.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the smoothed curve taught in Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Jeong to include wherein: at a start time point of the torque reduction phase, an absolute value of the torque reduction slope indicated by the torque reduction commands sent to the motor control unit is consistent with the slope of a vehicle torque request, and at an end time point of the torque increase phase, the torque increase slope indicated by the torque increase commands sent to the motor control unit is consistent with the slope of the vehicle torque request, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improving gear shift quality (Jeong [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230151886-A1: Brockley describes use of pedal maps
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662