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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al (US 2023/0182712 hereinafter “Yun”).
In regards to claim 1:
Yun teaches a method comprising: monitoring, by a processor, a state of a torque converter (4) of a vehicle; determining, by the processor (10), that the torque converter is in an open state based on the monitoring of the state of the torque converter; determining, by the processor, a first torque pattern of the torque converter based on the torque converter being in the open state; and dynamically controlling, by the processor and according to the first torque pattern, an output torque of an engine of the vehicle based on the torque converter being in the open state, such that the output torque of the engine at a predefined speed ratio of the torque converter is smaller than or equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio (Paragraph [0064] recites “In the hybrid control unit 10, the torque converter system model section 11 uses modeling information of a torque converter system to determine the operation of the torque converter 4, such as disengagement (opening), slip, and engagement (lock-up) of the damper clutch 4a within the torque converter 4, and provides the target operating point determination section 12 with performance and characteristic information of the torque converter, such as the speed ratio SR, torque ratio TR, and capacity factor Cf of the torque converter 4.”).
In regards to claim 9:
Yun teaches a system, comprising: a controller (38) including one or more processors and a memory storing executable instructions, the executable instructions when executed by the one or more processors (Paragraph [0046] recites “Additionally, it is understood that the term controller/control unit refers to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor and is specifically programmed to execute the processes described herein. The memory is configured to store the modules and the processor is specifically configured to execute said modules to perform one or more processes which are described further below.”), cause the controller to monitor a state of a torque converter (4) of a vehicle; and control an output torque of an engine of the vehicle, when the torque converter is in an open state, such that the output torque of the engine at a predefined speed ratio of the torque converter is smaller than or equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio (Paragraph [0064] recites “In the hybrid control unit 10, the torque converter system model section 11 uses modeling information of a torque converter system to determine the operation of the torque converter 4, such as disengagement (opening), slip, and engagement (lock-up) of the damper clutch 4a within the torque converter 4, and provides the target operating point determination section 12 with performance and characteristic information of the torque converter, such as the speed ratio SR, torque ratio TR, and capacity factor Cf of the torque converter 4.”).
In regards to claim 17:
Yun teaches the output torque of the engine is controlled according to a first torque pattern when the torque converter is in the open state; and the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to control the output torque of the engine according to a second torque pattern when the torque converter is in a closed state, the second torque pattern different from the first torque pattern (Paragraph [0064] recites “In the hybrid control unit 10, the torque converter system model section 11 uses modeling information of a torque converter system to determine the operation of the torque converter 4, such as disengagement (opening), slip, and engagement (lock-up) of the damper clutch 4a within the torque converter 4, and provides the target operating point determination section 12 with performance and characteristic information of the torque converter, such as the speed ratio SR, torque ratio TR, and capacity factor Cf of the torque converter 4.”).
In regards to claim 18:
Yun teaches a method comprising: monitoring, by a processor, a state of a torque converter (4) of a vehicle; determining, by the processor (10), that the torque converter is in an open state based on the monitoring of the state of the torque converter; determining, by the processor, a first torque pattern of the torque converter based on the torque converter being in the open state; controlling, by the processor, an output torque of an engine of the vehicle according to the first torque pattern based on the torque converter being in the open state, and controlling, by the process, the output torque of the engine of the vehicle according to a second torque pattern based on the torque converter being in a closed state, the second torque pattern different from the first torque pattern (Paragraph [0064] recites “In the hybrid control unit 10, the torque converter system model section 11 uses modeling information of a torque converter system to determine the operation of the torque converter 4, such as disengagement (opening), slip, and engagement (lock-up) of the damper clutch 4a within the torque converter 4, and provides the target operating point determination section 12 with performance and characteristic information of the torque converter, such as the speed ratio SR, torque ratio TR, and capacity factor Cf of the torque converter 4.”).
In regards to claim 19:
Yun teaches controlling the output torque of the engine according to the first torque pattern includes causing the output torque of the engine at a predefined speed ratio of the torque converter to be smaller than or equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio (Paragraph [0064]).
In regards to claim 20:
Yun teaches storing, by the processor, data structures indicative of the first torque pattern and the second torque pattern (Paragraph [0080] recites “setting data as illustrated in FIG. 5 may be used as the characteristic information of the torque converter, which may be used to determine the target operating point while being input and stored in the target operating point determination section 12.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8,10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Hyodo et al (US 2014/0379243 hereinafter “Hyodo”).
In regards to claim 2:
Yun does not teach the predefined speed ratio is equal to 0.8.
Hyodo teaches a speed ratio that is equal to 0.8 (Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the speed ratio of Yun to be at 0.8 as taught by Hyodo in order to operate the torque converter based on a torque need (Paragraph [0057]).
In regards to claim 5:
Yun does not teach dynamically controlling the output torque of the engine includes regulating the output torque of the engine as a function of a speed ratio of the torque converter across a full or substantially full speed ratio spectrum of the torque converter.
Hyodo teaches dynamically controlling the output torque of an engine includes regulating the output torque of the engine as a function of a speed ratio of the torque converter across a full or substantially full speed ratio spectrum of the torque converter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the output torque of Yun to be regulated as a function of a speed ratio as taught by Hyodo in order to have a desired output torque of the engine across a speed ratio spectrum determined by load and driving conditions (Paragraph [0040]).
In regards to claim 6:
Yun as modified teaches the function of the speed ratio of the torque converter is a linear function (Paragraph [0042] of Hyodo).
In regards to claim 8:
Yun does not teach dynamically controlling the output torque of the engine includes controlling fuel flow to the engine.
Hyodo teaches dynamically controlling the output torque of the engine includes controlling fuel flow to the engine (Paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Yun dynamically control the output torque of the engine with the inclusion of fuel flow to the engine as taught by Hyodo in order to control the engine speed (Paragraph [0046] of Hyodo).
In regards to claim 10:
Yun does not teach the predefined speed ratio is equal to 0.8.
Hyodo teaches a speed ratio that is equal to 0.8 (Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the speed ratio of Yun to be at 0.8 as taught by Hyodo in order to operate the torque converter based on a torque need (Paragraph [0057]).
In regards to claim 13:
Yun teaches the output torque of the engine is dynamically controlled, and the executable instructions are executed by the one or more processors, but does not teach the instructions to further cause the controller to regulate the output torque of the engine as a function of a speed ratio of the torque converter across a full or substantially full speed ratio spectrum of the torque converter.
Hyodo teaches dynamically controlling the output torque of an engine includes regulating the output torque of the engine as a function of a speed ratio of the torque converter across a full or substantially full speed ratio spectrum of the torque converter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the output torque of Yun to be regulated as a function of a speed ratio as taught by Hyodo in order to have a desired output torque of the engine across a speed ratio spectrum determined by load and driving conditions (Paragraph [0040]).
In regards to claim 16:
Yun does not teach dynamically controlling the output torque of the engine includes controlling fuel flow to the engine.
Hyodo teaches dynamically controlling the output torque of the engine includes controlling fuel flow to the engine (Paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Yun dynamically control the output torque of the engine with the inclusion of fuel flow to the engine as taught by Hyodo in order to control the engine speed (Paragraph [0046] of Hyodo).
Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Bellinger (US 6,165,102).
In regards to claim 3:
Yun does not teach dynamically controlling the output torque of the engine includes controlling the engine to maintain a substantially constant power of the engine.
Bellinger teaches the controlling of an output torque of an engine includes maintaining an engine at a substantially constant power (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to include the controlling of the output torque of Yun to be at a substantially constant torque as taught by Bellinger in order to have the output torque less than or equal to a desired stall turbine torque limit (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9).
In regards to claim 4:
Yun as modified teaches the substantially constant power of the engine is substantially equal to a power value corresponding to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9 of Bellinger).
In regards to claim 11:
Yun teaches the output torque of the engine is dynamically controlled, and the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, but does not teach the controller to control the engine to maintain a substantially constant power of the engine.
Bellinger teaches the controlling of an output torque of an engine includes maintaining an engine at a substantially constant power (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to include the controlling of the output torque of Yun to be at a substantially constant torque as taught by Bellinger in order to have the output torque less than or equal to a desired stall turbine torque limit (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9).
In regards to claim 12:
Yun as modified teaches the substantially constant power of the engine is substantially equal to a maximum power value corresponding to a torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9 of Bellinger).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun and Hyodo as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bellinger.
In regards to claim 7:
Yun does not teach the function of the speed ratio of the torque converter has a torque value at the predefined speed ratio that is substantially equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed.
Bellinger teaches a function of a speed ratio of a torque converter having a torque value at the predefined speed ratio that is substantially equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Yun to have a function of a speed ratio of a torque converter having a torque value at the predefined speed ratio that is substantially equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed as taught by Bellinger in order to output the maximum torque in a targeted engine speed range (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun and Hyodo as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Bellinger.
In regards to claim 15:
Yun does not teach the function of the speed ratio of the torque converter has a torque value, at the predefined speed ratio, that is substantially equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed
Bellinger teaches a function of a speed ratio of a torque converter having a torque value at the predefined speed ratio that is substantially equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Yun to have a function of a speed ratio of a torque converter having a torque value at the predefined speed ratio that is substantially equal to a maximum torque allowed by the torque converter at the predefined speed ratio and at governed engine speed as taught by Bellinger in order to output the maximum torque in a targeted engine speed range (Col 8, Line 47 – Col 9, Line 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 of Arguments and Remarks, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references.
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.
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights