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 amendments filed on June 08, 2026. Claims 1-12, and 21-29 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 5, 10, 21-23, and 28 being amended, and Claim 29 being newly added.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed June 08, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous objections to the drawings, withdraws the previous claim objections, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 08, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-12 and 21-28 under Meyer, in view of Gibson, Cattoor, and Liang, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection of Claims 1-12 and 21-29 is made in view of Meyer, in view of Johri, Gibson, Cattoor, and Liang.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0050609 A1, to Meyer, et al (hereinafter referred to as Meyer; previously of record); in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0080918 A1, to Johri, et al (hereinafter referred to as Johri; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, Meyer discloses the features of an apparatus comprising:
an electric motor having an output shaft (e.g. Paragraphs [0013], [0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes an electric machine such as an electric motor/ generator (M/G, 18), a torque converter (22), gearbox (24), and the gearbox (24) provides powertrain output torque to the output shaft (38));
a drive shaft to drive one or more wheels of a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1; the output shaft (38) may be connected to a driveline (39) (e.g., a driveshaft and universal joints));
a fluid torque converter to operatively couple the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft (e.g. Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes a torque converter (22), which may provide a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the transmission input shaft (32)); and
a clutch movable between an engaged position and a disengaged position (e.g. Paragraphs [0015], [0018]; where the clutch (26) may be engaged and disengaged from the engine),
the clutch to fluidly couple the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft when the clutch is in the disengaged position (e.g. Paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0018]; where when a disconnect clutch (KO clutch, 26) is engaged, the torque converter (22) is driveably connected to the engine to provide a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the transmission input shaft (32)),
the clutch to enable the electric motor to bypass the fluid torque converter to mechanically couple the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft when the clutch is in the engaged position (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; where the torque converter bypass clutch may be provided to, when engaged, frictionally of mechanically couple the impeller and the turbine of the torque converter (22)) ‘…’.
Meyer fails to disclose every feature of the clutch configured to move to the disengaged position when a vehicle speed is below a predetermined vehicle-speed threshold.
However, Johri, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for transition between control modes when a vehicle is creeping, where the vehicle may enter a creep mode when the vehicle speed is less than a threshold, and the torque converter bypass clutch (TCC) state is opened or remains open (e.g. Paragraphs [0040], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the speed control system of Meyer, with the feature of disengaging the clutch at certain vehicle speeds in the system of Johri, in order to control mode transitions of the driveline (see at least Paragraphs [0003], [0006] of Johri).
As per Claim 2, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Meyer further discloses the features of wherein
the clutch is to enable slip between the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft when the clutch is in the disengaged position (e.g. Paragraphs [0032], [0036]-[0037]; Figures 3-4; where the disconnect clutch can slip when the engine speed is lower than the motor speed, or when the torque converter bypass clutch is not fully locked or is open),
the clutch to prevent slip between the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft when the clutch is in the engaged position (e.g. Paragraphs [0025], [0039]; where the bypass clutch (34) may be operated as locked and the disconnect clutch can be fully closed to lock the engine and the motor (i.e. no slip occurs)).
As per Claim 3, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Meyer further discloses the features of wherein
the clutch is to enable the output shaft of the electric motor to rotate a first speed different than a second speed of the drive shaft when the clutch is in the disengaged position (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; where the disconnect clutch is disengaged and slipping when the engine speed is above or below the motor speed (i.e. rotates a different speeds)),
the clutch to enable the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft to rotate at the same speed when the clutch is in the engaged position (e.g. Paragraph [0033]; where the clutch can be fully closed to lock the engine and motor when the engine and motor speeds match).
As per Claim 4, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Meyer further discloses the features of further including a gearbox coupled between the output shaft of the electric motor and the fluid torque converter (e.g. Figure 1; where the gearbox (24) is coupled to the output shaft (38) and the fluid torque converter (22)).
As per Claim 5, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Meyer further discloses the features of further including a gearbox coupled between the fluid torque converter and the drive shaft (e.g. Figure 1; where the gearbox (34) is coupled between the torque converter (22) and the drive shaft (39)).
As per Claim 6, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Meyer further discloses the features of wherein the fluid torque converter is a hydraulic torque converter (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; where the torque converter (22) provides a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the input transmission shaft (32).
As per Claim 7, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Meyer further discloses the features of wherein the fluid torque converter includes a turbine and an impeller, wherein the impeller is coupled to the output shaft of the electric motor and the turbine is coupled to the drive shaft (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; Figure 1; where the torque converter (22) includes an impeller (35) fixed to the torque-converter housing (and consequently, fixed to the rotor) and a turbine (37) fixed to a transmission input shaft (32) that is driveably connected to the driven wheels (42)).
As per Claim 21, Meyer discloses the features of an apparatus comprising:
an electric motor having an output shaft (e.g. Paragraphs [0013], [0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes an electric machine such as an electric motor/ generator (M/G, 18), a torque converter (22), gearbox (24), and the gearbox (24) provides powertrain output torque to the output shaft (38));
a drive shaft operatively coupled to a wheel of a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1; the output shaft (38) may be connected to a driveline (39) (e.g., a driveshaft and universal joints));
a fluid coupling interposed between the output shaft and the drive shaft (e.g. Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes a torque converter (22), which may provide a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the transmission input shaft (32)),
the fluid coupling to couple the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft (e.g. Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes a torque converter (22), which may provide a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the transmission input shaft (32)),
the fluid coupling having a lock-out clutch movable between an engaged position and a disengaged position (e.g. Paragraphs [0015], [0018], [0033]; where the clutch (26) may be engaged and disengaged from the engine; and where the clutch can be fully closed to lock the engine and motor when the engine and motor speeds match),
the fluid coupling mechanically coupling the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft when the lock-out clutch is in the engaged position (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; where the torque converter bypass clutch may be provided to, when engaged, frictionally of mechanically couple the impeller and the turbine of the torque converter (22)), and
the fluid coupling fluidly coupling the output shaft and the drive shaft to permit slip between the output shaft and drive shaft when the lock-out clutch is in a disengaged position (e.g. Paragraphs [0032], [0036]-[0037]; Figures 3-4.where the disconnect clutch can slip when the engine speed is lower than the motor speed, or when the torque converter bypass clutch is not fully locked or is open) ‘…’.
Meyer fails to disclose every feature of a control unit operatively coupled to the lock-out clutch, the control unit to cause the lock-out clutch to move to the disengaged position in response to detecting that a vehicle speed is below a predetermined vehicle-speed threshold.
However, Johri, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for transition between control modes when a vehicle is creeping, where the torque converter bypass lock-up clutch (TCC) is electrically operated by a controller (12); and where the vehicle may enter a creep mode when the vehicle speed is less than a threshold, and the torque converter bypass clutch (TCC) state is opened or remains open (e.g. Paragraphs [0026], [0040], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the speed control system of Meyer, with the feature of disengaging the clutch at certain vehicle speeds in the system of Johri, in order to control mode transitions of the driveline (see at least Paragraphs [0003], [0006] of Johri).
Claims 8, 23-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, in view of Johri, as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent No. 103381809 A, to Gibson, et al (hereinafter referred to as Gibson; previously of record).
As per Claim 8, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 7, but the combination of Meyer, in view of Johri, fails to teach every feature of wherein the clutch is slidably coupled to the turbine.
However, Gibson, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for the use of a powertrain disconnect-type clutch, where the TCC may slide in response to a command signal to adjust the desired speed difference between the torque converter impeller and the turbine (e.g. Page 77, Paragraph beginning with “The methods and systems of FIGS. 1-3 and 25-26 …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri, with the feature of using a sliding clutch in the system of Gibson, in order to have zero slip in the driveline disconnect clutch (see at least Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “One method for adjusting or controlling …” of Gibson).
As per Claim 23, Meyer discloses the features of an apparatus comprising:
an electric motor having an output shaft e.g. Paragraphs [0013], [0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes an electric machine such as an electric motor/ generator (M/G, 18), a torque converter (22), gearbox (24), and the gearbox (24) provides powertrain output torque to the output shaft (38));
a drive shaft operatively coupled to a wheel of a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1; the output shaft (38) may be connected to a driveline (39) (e.g., a driveshaft and universal joints));
a fluid coupling (e.g. Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes a torque converter (22), which may provide a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the transmission input shaft (32)) including
a turbine, an impeller and a stator (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; Figure 1; where the torque converter (22) includes an impeller (35) fixed to the torque-converter housing (and consequently, fixed to the rotor) and a turbine (37) fixed to a transmission input shaft (32) that is driveably connected to the driven wheels (42));
a lock-out clutch ‘…’ coupled to the turbine of the fluid coupling (e.g. Paragraphs [0025], [0060]; where the bypass clutch (34) may be operated as locked or open, and determines a desired capacity to lockup the disconnect clutch during engine run up); and
a controller operably connected to the lock-out clutch (e.g. Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]; where the controller (50) estimates a clutch capacity and determines a commanded motor torque to lock the engine and the motor),
the controller to actuate the lock-out clutch between an engaged position in which the fluid coupling mechanically couples the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft (e.g. Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; Figure 1; where a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV, 10) includes a torque converter (22), which may provide a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the transmission input shaft (32)), and
a disengaged position in which the fluid coupling fluidly couples the output shaft and the drive shaft to permit slip (e.g. Paragraphs [0032], [0036]-[0037]; Figures 3-4.where the disconnect clutch can slip when the engine speed is lower than the motor speed, or when the torque converter bypass clutch is not fully locked or is open) ‘…’.
Meyer fails to disclose every feature of a lock-out clutch slidably coupled to the turbine of the fluid coupling; and wherein the controller causes the lock-out clutch to move to the disengaged position in response to detecting a rotor-lock condition when a vehicle speed is below a predetermined vehicle-speed threshold.
However, Johri, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of wherein the controller causes the lock-out clutch to move to the disengaged position in response to detecting a rotor-lock condition when a vehicle speed is below a predetermined vehicle-speed threshold.
Johri teaches a method for transition between control modes when a vehicle is creeping, where the torque converter bypass lock-up clutch (TCC) is electrically operated by a controller (12); and where the vehicle may enter a creep mode when the vehicle speed is less than a threshold, and the torque converter bypass clutch (TCC) state is opened or remains open (e.g. Paragraphs [0026], [0040], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the speed control system of Meyer, with the feature of disengaging the clutch at certain vehicle speeds in the system of Johri, in order to control mode transitions of the driveline (see at least Paragraphs [0003], [0006] of Johri).
However, Gibson, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of a lock-out clutch slidably coupled to the turbine of the fluid coupling.
Gibson teaches a method for the use of a powertrain disconnect-type clutch, where the TCC may slide in response to a command signal to adjust the desired speed difference between the torque converter impeller and the turbine (e.g. Page 77, Paragraph beginning with “The methods and systems of FIGS. 1-3 and 25-26 …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri, with the feature of using a sliding clutch in the system of Gibson, in order to have zero slip in the driveline disconnect clutch (see at least Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “One method for adjusting or controlling …” of Gibson).
As per Claim 24, Meyer in view of Johri and Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Meyer further discloses the features of further including a gearbox coupled between the electric motor and the fluid coupling (e.g. Figure 1; where the gearbox (24) is coupled to the output shaft (38) and the fluid torque converter (22)).
As per Claim 25, Meyer in view of Johri and Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Meyer further discloses the features of wherein the fluid coupling is a hydraulic torque converter (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; where the torque converter (22) provides a hydraulic coupling between the shaft (30) and the input transmission shaft (32).
As per Claim 26, Meyer in view of Johri and Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Meyer further discloses the features of wherein the impeller is coupled to the output shaft of the electric motor and the turbine is coupled to the drive shaft (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; Figure 1; where the torque converter (22) includes an impeller (35) fixed to the torque-converter housing (and consequently, fixed to the rotor) and a turbine (37) fixed to a transmission input shaft (32) that is driveably connected to the driven wheels (42)).
As per Claim 27, Meyer in view of Johri and Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 26, and Gibson further teaches the features of wherein the lock-out clutch is slidably coupled to the turbine.
Gibson teaches a method for the use of a powertrain disconnect-type clutch, where the TCC may slide in response to a command signal to adjust the desired speed difference between the torque converter impeller and the turbine (e.g. Page 77, Paragraph beginning with “The methods and systems of FIGS. 1-3 and 25-26 …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri, with the feature of using a sliding clutch in the system of Gibson, in order to have zero slip in the driveline disconnect clutch and more precisely control the clutch (see at least Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “One method for adjusting or controlling …” of Gibson).
As per Claim 29, Meyer, in view of Johri and Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Johri further teaches the features of wherein the predetermined vehicle-speed threshold is less than five miles-per-hour.
Johri teaches a method for transition between control modes when a vehicle is creeping, the vehicle speed is less than a threshold (e.g., 8 KPH) (where 8 KPH is approximately 5 MPH) (e.g. Paragraphs [0026], [0040], [0046], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the speed control system of Meyer, with the feature of disengaging the clutch at slow vehicle speeds in the system of Johri, in order to allow the vehicle to creep at a slow speed or hold the vehicle stationary on a small positive incline (see at least Paragraph [0003] of Johri).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, in view of Johri and Gibson, as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0250873 A1, to Cattoor, et al (hereinafter referred to as Cattoor; previously of record).
As per Claim 9, Meyer, in view of Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 8, but the combination of Meyer, in view of Gibson, fails to teach every feature of further including a valve fluidly coupled to the clutch, the valve movable between a first position and a second position; in the first position, the valve to cause the clutch to move to the engaged position to mechanically couple the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft; and in the second position, the valve to cause the clutch to move to the disengaged position to fluidly couple the output shaft of the electric motor and the drive shaft.
However, Cattoor, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for operating a torque converter, where the controller (152) may send commands to hydraulic actuators (160) (e.g., a hydraulic valve) to the actuator to engage or disengage the torque converter disconnect clutch (105), and when engaged, the lock-up clutch holds the input and output of the torque converter at equal rotational speeds, and when disengaged, the clutch permits the torque converter to hydraulically couple between the prime mover and the transmission (e.g. Paragraphs [0018], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri and Gibson, with the feature of using a valve to move the clutch between a first and second position in the system of Cattoor, in order to automatically generate shift signals to improve efficiency of the powertrain during operating conditions of the vehicle (see at least Paragraphs [0024], [0046] of Cattoor).
As per Claim 10, Meyer, in view of Johri, Gibson, and Cattoor, teaches the features of Claim 9, and Cattoor further teaches the features of further including a controller to cause the valve to move to the second position in response to detecting a rotor lock condition of the vehicle and determining that the vehicle speed does not exceed the vehicle speed threshold.
Cattoor teaches a method for operating a torque converter, where the controller (152) may send commands to hydraulic actuators (160) (e.g., a hydraulic valve) to the actuator to engage or disengage the torque converter disconnect clutch (105); and where at vehicle start and when there is a higher than threshold desire for tractive effort (i.e. rotor lock), the engine may be connected to a transmission via a torque converter, and in response to the speed variance being smaller than a threshold value, the torque converter may be decoupled and the engine may be connected to the transmission via the direct drive unit, and the clutch may be connected when the vehicle speed condition is lower than a threshold (e.g. Paragraphs [0018], [0020], [0029], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri and Gibson, with the feature of controlling the clutch position when rotor lock is detected in the system of Cattoor, in order to improve efficiency of the powertrain during operating conditions of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0046] of Cattoor).
As per Claim 12, Meyer, in view of Johri, Gibson, and Cattoor, teaches the features of Claim 10, and Gibson further teaches the features of wherein the rotor lock condition of the vehicle includes at least one of a towing mode, an off-road mode, an electric motor stall, an elevated grade, or an inverter condition.
Gibson teaches a method for the use of a powertrain disconnect-type clutch, where the powertrain is selectively adjusted in response to the vehicle’s road grade, and may determine the slope of the road using an inclinometer, to determine whether to increase torque demand (e.g. Page 73, Paragraph beginning with “At 2530, the method determines …”; and Page 79, Paragraph beginning with “At 2724, the method 2700 applies …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri, with the feature of using a sliding clutch in the system of Gibson, in order to improve the efficiency of moving the vehicle on the slope and decrease wear (see at least Page 79, Paragraph beginning with “At 2724, the method 2700 applies …” of Gibson).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, in view of Johri, Gibson, and Cattoor, as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0107633 A1, to Liang, et al (hereinafter referred to as Liang; previously of record).
As per Claim 11, Meyer, in view of Gibson and Cattoor, teaches the features of Claim 9, but the combination of Meyer, in view of Gibson and Cattoor, fails to teach every feature of further including a controller to cause the valve to move to the second position and operate the electric motor at least at a minimum motor speed threshold in response to detecting a rotor lock condition.
However, Liang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for implementing hybrid powertrain speed control, where the controller may protect the powertrain speed from falling below a desired idle speed when the engine is on, from falling under the minimum speed for transmission pressure in EV mode, when the impeller speed is greater than the pressure threshold speed (e.g. Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri, Gibson and Cattoor, with the feature of maintaining a minimum speed in the system of Liang, in order to protect the system integrity and improve accuracy of the measurements (see at least Paragraph [0044] of Liang).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, in view of Johri, as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0107633 A1, to Liang, et al (hereinafter referred to as Liang; previously of record).
As per Claim 22, Meyer, in view of Johri, teaches the features of Claim 21, but the combination of Meyer, in view of Johri, fails to teach every feature of wherein the control unit, based on a detected vehicle speed and a motor torque command, actuates the lock-out clutch to maintain a motor speed above a predetermined motor-speed threshold to prevent rotor lock of the electric motor.
However, Liang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for implementing hybrid powertrain speed control, where the controller may protect the powertrain speed from falling below a desired idle speed when the engine is on, from falling under the minimum speed for transmission pressure in EV mode, when the impeller speed is greater than the pressure threshold speed (e.g. Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri, with the feature of maintaining a minimum speed in the system of Liang, in order to protect the system integrity and improve accuracy of the measurements (see at least Paragraph [0044] of Liang).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, in view of Johri and Gibson, as applied to Claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0107633 A1, to Liang, et al (hereinafter referred to as Liang; previously of record).
As per Claim 28, Meyer, in view of Gibson, teaches the features of Claim 23, but the combination of Meyer, in view of Gibson, fails to teach every feature of wherein the controller causes the lock-out clutch to remain in the disengaged position and maintains the electric motor speed above a predetermined minimum-motor-speed threshold while the rotor-lock condition persists
Liang teaches a method for implementing hybrid powertrain speed control, where the controller may protect the powertrain speed from falling below a desired idle speed when the engine is on, from falling under the minimum speed for transmission pressure in EV mode, when the impeller speed is greater than the pressure threshold speed (e.g. Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the speed control system of Meyer, in view of Johri and Gibson, with the feature of maintaining a minimum speed in the system of Liang, in order to protect the system integrity and improve accuracy of the measurements (see at least Paragraph [0044] of Liang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bichkar, et al (U.S. 2023/0182716 A1), which teaches a method for connecting or disconnecting a vehicle clutch based on speed.
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 MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights