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.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maurer (US 2013/0087018).
Claim 9
Maurer discloses a system, comprising:
a torque converter (DW), comprising:
an impeller (see annotated FIG. 1 below); and
an impeller clutch configured to couple the impeller to an engine (“drive engine” which supplies speed n_Mot); and
a controller configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch (see paragraph [0025]); and
cause an upshift of a gear system, fluidly coupled to the engine (at N_Mot) via the torque converter (DW), based on disengagement of the impeller clutch (see paragraph [0025]).
[AltContent: textbox (Impeller clutch)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Impeller)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
287
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15
Maurer discloses a system capable of being used with a hydraulic fracturing pump, comprising:
a torque converter (DW) coupled to a gear system (VG), the torque converter comprising:
an impeller (see annotated FIG. 1 above); and
an impeller clutch configured to couple the impeller to an engine (“drive engine” which supplies speed n_Mot); and
a controller configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch (see paragraph [0025]); and
cause an upshift of a gear system, fluidly coupled to the engine (at N_Mot) via the torque converter (DW), based on disengagement of the impeller clutch (see paragraph [0025]).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 6,846,265; hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Claim 10
Maurer does not necessarily disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: detect that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed, wherein, to cause disengagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch based on detecting that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed. However, Yamamoto discloses wherein a controller is further configured to: detect that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (since the clutch is disengaged based on the upshift), wherein, to cause disengagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch based on detecting that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (see column 6, lines 34-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have disengaged the torque converter clutch during the upshift and reengaged only after the upshift is completed as taught by Yamamoto in order to reduce shock.
Claim 11
Maurer does not necessarily disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: cause engagement of the impeller clutch after the upshift of the gear system.
However, Yamamoto discloses wherein a controller is further configured to: detect that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (since the clutch is disengaged based on the upshift), wherein, to cause disengagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch based on detecting that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (see column 6, lines 34-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have disengaged the torque converter clutch during the upshift and reengaged only after the upshift is completed as taught by Yamamoto in order to reduce shock.
Claim 14
Maurer as modified according to claim 11 discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: cause disengagement of a lockup clutch of the torque converter prior to causing the upshift of the gear system; and cause engagement of the lockup clutch after the upshift of the gear system and engagement of the impeller clutch (see rejection of claim 11).
Claim 16
Maurer does not necessarily disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: detect that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed, wherein, to cause disengagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch based on detecting that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed. However, Yamamoto discloses wherein a controller is further configured to: detect that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (since the clutch is disengaged based on the upshift), wherein, to cause disengagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch based on detecting that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (see column 6, lines 34-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have disengaged the torque converter clutch during the upshift and reengaged only after the upshift is completed as taught by Yamamoto in order to reduce shock.
Claim 17
Maurer does not necessarily disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: cause engagement of the impeller clutch after the upshift of the gear system.
However, Yamamoto discloses wherein a controller is further configured to: detect that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (since the clutch is disengaged based on the upshift), wherein, to cause disengagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause disengagement of the impeller clutch based on detecting that the upshift of the gear system is to be performed (see column 6, lines 34-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have disengaged the torque converter clutch during the upshift and reengaged only after the upshift is completed as taught by Yamamoto in order to reduce shock.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Roses et al. (US 2019/0136914; hereinafter “Roses”).
Claim 12
Maurer does not disclose wherein, to cause engagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause slipping of the impeller clutch at an engagement rate that is based on a load on the engine. Roses discloses that a torque converter clutch may be controlled to slip by an amount that is necessary to prevent the engine torque spike from being transferred in order to provide smoother operation (see paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have controlled slip of the impeller clutch based on spikes in engine torque in order to provide smoother operation.
Claim 13
Maurer does not disclose wherein, to cause engagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: monitor whether the engine is stabilized; and cause engagement of the impeller clutch further based on a determination that the engine is not stabilized, wherein engagement of the impeller clutch is configured to cause the engine to be stabilized. However, Roses discloses that a torque converter clutch may be controlled to slip by an amount that is necessary to prevent the engine torque spike which occurs from being transferred in order to provide smoother operation (see paragraph [0004]). In other words, the engine spikes necessarily are monitored and when those occur, the clutch is slipped to avoid transferring that spike to the transmission. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have controlled slip of the impeller clutch based on detected spikes in engine torque in order to provide smoother operation. As so modified, Maurer would disclose wherein, to cause engagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: monitor whether the engine is stabilized (interpreted as not causing an “engine torque spike”); and cause engagement of the impeller clutch further based on a determination that the engine is not stabilized (interpreted as causing “an engine torque spike”), wherein engagement of the impeller clutch is configured to cause the engine to be stabilized.
Claim 18
Maurer does not disclose wherein, to cause engagement of the impeller clutch, the controller is configured to: cause slipping of the impeller clutch at an engagement rate that is based on a load on the engine. Roses discloses that a torque converter clutch may be controlled to slip by an amount that is necessary to prevent the engine torque spike from being transferred in order to provide smoother operation (see paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Maurer to have controlled slip of the impeller clutch based on spikes in engine torque in order to provide smoother operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With reference to claim 1, the prior art does not disclose ore render obvious a method comprising with clarifying language added “causing, based on detecting that the upshift [of a gear system coupled to a hydraulic fracturing pump] is to be performed and prior to the upshift, disengagement of an impeller clutch of a torque converter that fluidly couples a gaseous fuel engine to the gear system.” The prior art fracturing pumps do not disengage the impeller clutch while upshifting.
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With reference to claim 19, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a hydraulic fracturing pump system comprising a hydraulic fracturing pump connected to the gear system and comprising a hydraulic fracturing pump and a controller that disengages an impeller clutch of a torque converter and shifts the gear system based on the disengagement of the impeller clutch. The structural addition of the hydraulic pump in the body of the claim makes the combination non-obvious in view of prior art that disengages impeller clutches during upshifts in automobiles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0254941 discloses a torque converter clutch is disengaged and the transmission is controlled to produce an upshift. US 4,338,832 discloses that during upshifts, the lockup clutch is disengaged.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights