DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 is the first office action on the merits of Application No. 19/259,656 filed on 07/03/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Priority
Application claims the benefit of Application No. EP24187158.1 filed 07/08/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities: Figure 2 is missing labelling for diagrams or flowcharts that require text for understanding.
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
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1, “a controller” should read “the controller” as claim 10 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 recites a controller.
Claim 10, line 3, “-processing unit” should read “processing unit”.
Claim 10, line 4, “parameter processing unit” should read “processing unit”
Claim 12, line 1, “The powertrain according to claim 1” should read “The powertrain according to claim 11”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processing unit” in claims 9 and 10;
The structure of the parameter processing unit is not disclosed in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 10 recites “… when the computer program is run by the processing unit”. The “parameter processing unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the parameter processing unit to perform the function of running the computer program. The specification lacks detailed description of the parameter processing unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the parameter processing unit is, what the advantages of using a parameter processing unit are and how the computer program is run by the parameter processing unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a parameter processing unit.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…a controller, wherein the dog-clutch is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller, evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration…and a disengaged configuration…enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what is a desired configuration between the “engaged configuration” and “disengaged configuration”, i.e. what configurations exist between the engaged/disengaged configurations. Further, “desired” is a subjective term. It is not clear how the “desired configuration” is determined and what is the “desired configuration”. In addition, it is not clear who/what implements “enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Similar issue has been observed in claim 11 and has been rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as they depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recite “a computer readable medium”, while the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten,500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a “machine-readable medium” were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves) (MPEP 2106.03).
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koga et al. (US 20230392654 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koga discloses a method to control a powertrain (e.g. 1, figs. 1-9, fig. 1 has been applied unless it is mentioned otherwise) of a vehicle, the powertrain comprising: a dog-clutch (e.g. 19, or 22 see abstract, fig. 1, paras 41 and 45), comprising:
a primary part (2A or 3A) , configured to be driven in rotation by an electric motor (2 or 4) of the powertrain, and
a secondary part (e.g. 8, 8a, or 16, 16a, para 40), configured to drive wheels (e.g. 6, fig. 1) of the vehicle,
a controller (7), wherein the dog-clutch (19 or 22) is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller (7), evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration (see para 40) in which the primary part (2A) and the secondary part (8a) are engaged with each other so as to be secured in rotation with each other and a disengaged configuration in which the primary part and the secondary part are disengaged from each other, enabling rotation of the primary part (2A) and the secondary part (8a) relative to each other,
a first speed sensor (e.g. 51 or 52) configured to measure a physical quantity (e.g. rotational speed) that reflects a rotation speed of the primary part, and
a second speed sensor (e.g. 51 or 52), configured to measure a physical quantity that reflects a rotation speed of the secondary part (8a), (see para 45” The first clutch mechanism 19 and the second clutch mechanism 21 are both dog clutches, and the engagement/disengagement operations of the first clutch mechanism 19 and the second clutch mechanism 21 are controlled by the controller 7. Various signals are input to the controller 7. The various signals include, for example, signals from rotational speed sensors that can detect the rotational speed of the first sleeve 20 and the first reduction gear 8 of the first clutch mechanism 19 and the second sleeve 22 and the fourth reduction gear 16 of the second clutch mechanism 21. These rotational speeds are used for detecting the differential rotation between the first clutch mechanism 19 and the second clutch mechanism 21.”)
wherein the method comprises a step of giving the order to evolve to the desired configuration, the order being given by the controller (7) to the dog-clutch (19 or 22),
checking, by the controller (7), whether the dog-clutch has actually evolved to the desired configuration, as the order to evolve to the desired configuration was given to the dog-clutch (19 or 22) by the controller (7), based on the physical quantities (e.g. rotational speed) measured by the first and the second sensors (51). (see fig. 7 and paras 68-80)
Regarding claim 2, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein the step of checking comprises: a step of giving a torque pulse instruction (see paras 95-109) to the electric motor (2 or 4, fig. 1) tending to decrease the rotation speed of the primary part (2A or 3A), and a step of comparing a first speed difference to a second speed difference, wherein the first speed difference is a difference between the rotation speed of the primary part reflected by the physical quantity measured by the first sensor (51) and the rotation speed of the secondary part (8a or 16a) reflected by the physical quantity measured by the second sensor (51) before applying the torque pulse, and wherein the second speed difference is a difference between the rotation speed of the primary part (2a or 3a) and the rotation speed of the secondary part (8a or 16a) after applying the torque pulse. (see para 91 and S9 of fig. 7 and fig. 8A/B)
Regarding claim 3, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein the step of checking comprises: a step of determining that the dog-clutch is actually in the engaged configuration, if the first difference and the second difference are similar and tend towards zero, (see para 76-77) and a step of determining that the dog-clutch (19 or 21) is actually in the disengaged configuration (see paras 78-80), if the first difference tends towards zero and the second difference is higher than the first difference. (see fig. 7 and paras 70-93)
Regarding claim 4, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step of waiting, after the step of giving the order, the step of checking being executed after the step of waiting. (see step 4 in fig. 7 which indicates a step of waiting.)
Regarding claim 5, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein, when the desired configuration is the disengaged configuration, the method comprises, before the step of giving the order, a step of lowering a torque of the electric motor. (see para 7 and claim 2)
Regarding claim 6, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein, when the desired configuration is the engaged configuration, the method comprises, before the step of giving the order, a step of driving the primary part (2a or 3a, fig. 1) by the electric motor (2 or 4, fig. 1) so that the rotation speed of the primary part is equal to the rotation speed of the secondary part. (see para 83 or 91-92)
Regarding claim 7, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein when the step of checking has led to determine that the dog-clutch (e.g. 19 or 22, fig. 1) has not actually evolved to the desired configuration, the method comprising: a step of giving an additional order to evolve to the desired configuration, the additional order being given by the controller (7) to the dog-clutch (19 or 22) , and after the step of giving the additional order, a step of additional checking, by the controller (7), whether the dog-clutch has actually evolved to the desired configuration, as the order to evolve to the desired configuration was given to the dog-clutch (19 or 22) by the controller (22), based on the physical quantities measured by the first and the second sensors. (see the steps of fig. 7 and paras 70-93)
Regarding claim 8, Koga discloses the method (see figs. 7-9) according to claim 1, wherein the step of checking includes that the controller (7,fig. 1) does not rely on any other sensor than the first speed sensor (51 or 52) and the second speed sensor (51 or 52) for determining whether the dog-clutch (19 or 22) has actually evolved to the desired configuration during the step of checking.
Regarding claim 9, Koga discloses a computer program product (e.g. microcomputer, see para 38) comprising a computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processing unit (CPU) and adapted to cause execution of a method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the processing unit.
Regarding claim 10, Koga discloses a controller (e.g. 7, fig. 1) comprising a computer readable medium according to having encoded thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processing unit (CPU) and adapted to cause execution of a method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the processing unit (CPU). (see para 8)
Regarding claim 11, Koga discloses a powertrain (e.g. 1, figs. 1-9, fig. 1 has been applied unless it is mentioned otherwise) of a vehicle, the powertrain comprising:
a dog-clutch (e.g. 19, or 22 see abstract, fig. 1, paras 41 and 45), comprising:
a primary part (2A or 3A) , configured to be driven in rotation by an electric motor (2 or 4) of the powertrain, and
a secondary part (e.g. 8, 8a, or 16, 16a, para 40), configured to drive wheels (e.g. 6, fig. 1) of the vehicle,
a controller (7), wherein the dog-clutch (19 or 22) is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller (7), evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration (see para 40) in which the primary part (2A) and the secondary part (8a) are engaged with each other so as to be secured in rotation with each other and a disengaged configuration in which the primary part and the secondary part are disengaged from each other, enabling rotation of the primary part (2A) and the secondary part (8a) relative to each other,
a first speed sensor (e.g. 51 or 52, fig. 5 or fig. 6), configured to measure a physical quantity (e.g. rotational speed) that reflects a rotation speed of the primary part, and
a second speed sensor (e.g. 51 or 52), configured to measure a physical quantity that reflects a rotation speed of the secondary part (8a), (see para 45” The first clutch mechanism 19 and the second clutch mechanism 21 are both dog clutches, and the engagement/disengagement operations of the first clutch mechanism 19 and the second clutch mechanism 21 are controlled by the controller 7. Various signals are input to the controller 7. The various signals include, for example, signals from rotational speed sensors that can detect the rotational speed of the first sleeve 20 and the first reduction gear 8 of the first clutch mechanism 19 and the second sleeve 22 and the fourth reduction gear 16 of the second clutch mechanism 21. These rotational speeds are used for detecting the differential rotation between the first clutch mechanism 19 and the second clutch mechanism 21.”)
wherein the powertrain is configured to implement the method according to claim 1. (Please see the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 12, Koga discloses the powertrain (e.g. 1, see figs. 1-9) according to claim 11, wherein the powertrain does not include another sensor than the first speed sensor (51 or 52) and the second speed sensor (51 or 52) for determining whether the dog-clutch (19 or 22) has actually evolved to the desired configuration during the step of checking.
Regarding claim 14, Koga discloses the powertrain (e.g. 1, see figs. 1-9) according to claim 11, wherein the powertrain includes a fork position sensor (51). (see paras 64-65)
Regarding claim 15, Koga discloses a vehicle comprising a powertrain (1, fig. 1) according to claim 12.
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)(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, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NAKANISHI et al. (US 20260126087 A1)
Regarding claim 1, NAKANISHI discloses a method to control a powertrain (figs. 1-11, para 39) of a vehicle (90, fig. 1), the powertrain comprising: a dog-clutch (e.g. 10, fig. 5, para 44), comprising:
a primary part (11) , configured to be driven in rotation by an electric motor (82) of the powertrain, and
a secondary part (e.g. 12), configured to drive wheels (92, fig. 1) of the vehicle (90),
a controller (7, see para 43), wherein the dog-clutch (10, fig. 5) is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller (7), evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration (see paras 30 and 43, fig. 4) in which the primary part (11) and the secondary part (12) are engaged with each other so as to be secured in rotation with each other and a disengaged configuration (para 30 and 41, fig. 4) in which the primary part (11) and the secondary part (12) are disengaged from each other, enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other, (see fig. 4)
a first speed sensor (e.g. 23 or 6, fig. 5, para 54 or 43) configured to measure a physical quantity (e.g. phase difference) that reflects a rotation speed of the primary part (11), and
a second speed sensor (e.g. 24, para 54), configured to measure a physical quantity that reflects a rotation speed of the secondary part (12),
wherein the method comprises a step of giving the order to evolve to the desired configuration, the order being given by the controller (7) to the dog-clutch (10),
checking, by the controller (7), whether the dog-clutch has actually evolved to the desired configuration, as the order to evolve to the desired configuration was given to the dog-clutch (10) by the controller (7), based on the physical quantities (e.g. rotational speed) measured by the first (5 or 23) and the second sensors (24). (see paras 47-52)
Regarding claim 11, NAKANISHI discloses a powertrain (figs. 1-11, para 39) of a vehicle (90, fig. 1), the powertrain comprising:
a dog-clutch (e.g. 10, fig. 5, para 44), comprising:
a primary part (11) , configured to be driven in rotation by an electric motor (82) of the powertrain, and
a secondary part (e.g. 12), configured to drive wheels (92, fig. 1) of the vehicle (90),
a controller (7, see para 43), wherein the dog-clutch (10, fig. 5) is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller (7), evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration (see paras 30 and 43, fig. 4) in which the primary part (11) and the secondary part (12) are engaged with each other so as to be secured in rotation with each other and a disengaged configuration (para 30 and 41, fig. 4) in which the primary part (11) and the secondary part (12) are disengaged from each other, enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other, (see fig. 4)
a first speed sensor (e.g. 23 or 6, fig. 5, para 54 or 43) configured to measure a physical quantity (e.g. phase difference) that reflects a rotation speed of the primary part (11), and
a second speed sensor (e.g. 24, para 54), configured to measure a physical quantity that reflects a rotation speed of the secondary part (12),
wherein the powertrain is configured to implement the method according to claim 1. (Please see the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 13, NAKANISHI discloses the powertrain according to claim 11, wherein the powertrain is devoid of a fork position sensor. (e.g. sensors 24, 6 and 23 are not fork position sensor.)
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Arnold et al. (US 20120022752 A1) discloses a method of operating a vehicle drive-train with an engine and a transmission during a gearshift in which an interlocking shift element is disengaged and a frictional shift element is engaged. Upon a shift command, the shifting time and a transmission input speed are monitored. If the input speed deviates from a synchronous speed equivalent to the gear ratio being disengaged, recognizing disengagement of the interlocking shifting element. If an engaged operating condition of the interlocking shifting element to be disengaged is detected, after the lapse of a time interval beginning with the shift command, a current drive torque of the drive machine is brought by motor actuation to a level that corresponds to a difference between the current transmission input torque and a torque that can be transmitted by the frictional shifting element to be engaged, operating with slip, plus a torque offset value.
Jeoung et al. (US 11993266 B1) discloses a transmission control system of an electric vehicle includes a motor configured to generate drive torque; a transmission configured to perform multi-stage shifting using a dog clutch in a restraint relationship with a one-way clutch configured to transmit forward power of the motor; a speed sensor configured to measure a rotation speed on an output side of the transmission; a motor control unit configured to control the drive torque from the motor according to a driver's accelerator position signal (APS) value; and a vehicle control unit configured to control the multi-stage shifting of the transmission according to a torque command based on the APS value, and to perform clutch alignment control by moving up a sleeve in a reverse direction to contact a hub through a reverse rotation operation of gear teeth by applying reverse rotation torque of predetermined drive force through the motor in a pre-engagement state of the dog clutch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4644. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-273-8300. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F. P/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/FARHANA PERVIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights