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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in this application because Figure 3 shows only generic flow charts with no information presented in each element of the chart. Applicants' invention is unclear from the drawings because a number of methods may fit the same flow diagram. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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) 1-2,10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Frevert DE 102021206807 (see attached google machine translation).
In Re 1-2,10-15 Frevert teaches:
1. A computer system (70 electronic control device known as a computer in the art of electronic control) for controlling a powertrain system (40) of a vehicle (10), the powertrain system comprising an internal combustion engine (20) connectable to one or more drive wheels (51,52), the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to selectively operate the powertrain system in a number of operational modes comprising at least a freewheeling mode (ES-FM)(“coasting” pg 3 ll 1-9), in which an output shaft of the engine is non-rotating (pg 4 ll 4-5 teaches the engine needs to be started by clutch engagement, i.e. engine off and not rotating) and the engine is disconnected from the one or more drive wheels (engine disconnected via clutch), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
identify, in the freewheeling mode, a braking situation for the vehicle (pg 5 ll 24—31, “driver steps on the brake pedal,” “calculate a torque on the clutch and send this to a brake control unit […] resulting in constant braking”);
responsive to the identified braking situation, determine to switch from a first clutch actuating engine restarting mode (restarting the engine when needed during coasting pg 4 ll 4-5 without brake pedal actuation) to a second clutch actuating engine restarting mode (restarting the engine when brake activated to reduce braking power needed at disc brakes pg 4 ll 22-40, Frevert clearly teaches multiple discrete restart procedures with clutch); and
restart the engine by controlling a clutch according to the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode (pg 4 ll 22-40, pg 5 last two paragraphs, pg 6 middle).
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the braking situation for the vehicle by determining that a brake pedal is positioned in an engaged state during the freewheeling mode (pg 5 ll 24—31, “driver steps on the brake pedal”), and/or (optional) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the braking situation for the vehicle by receiving a braking request from an autonomous braking system during the freewheeling mode.
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein restarting the engine by controlling the clutch according to the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode is performed by engaging the clutch to a torque transfer position (abstract pgs 4-6 “torque” and inherent).
11. A powertrain system comprising the computer system according to claim 1, an internal combustion engine, a controllable clutch, a transmission (“transmission” pg 5) arranged to be coupled to the internal combustion engine by means of the controllable clutch, and wherein the transmission further comprises an output shaft configured to be coupled to a driven axle of a set of wheels (see figure).
12. A vehicle (10) comprising the computer system (70 and associated taught programming method logic) of claim 1.
13. A computer-implemented method for controlling a powertrain system of a vehicle , the powertrain system comprising an internal combustion engine connectable to one or more drive wheels, the powertrain system being operable in a number of operational modes, including at least a freewheeling mode (ES-FM), in which an output shaft of the engine is non-rotating, and the engine is disconnected from the one or more drive wheels, wherein the method comprises identifying, in the freewheeling mode, and by processing circuitry of a computer system, a braking situation for the vehicle; responsive to the identified braking situation, determining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, to switch from a first clutch actuating engine restarting mode to a second clutch actuating engine restarting mode; and restarting, by processing circuitry of the computer system, the engine by controlling a clutch according to the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode (see in re 1 above over Frevert).
14. A computer program product comprising program code (70 and associated taught programming method logic) for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 13.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (70 and associated taught programming method logic, note computers inherently contain non-transitory media), which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Frevert DE 102021206807 (see attached google machine translation) in view of Kim US 2015/0191172.
In Re 3, Frevert does not teach although Kim teaches the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the braking situation amounts to a panic braking situation (fig 3 S5 “strong braking force”). Kim further teaches user requiring abrupt braking force (paras 36-37). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Kim’s panic braking determination to Frevert’s system to satisfy users abrupt braking request.
In Re 4, Frevert in view of Kim, Kim further teaches the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the braking situation amounts to a panic braking situation by determining changes in the position of the brake pedal (paras 36-37), and/or (optional) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the braking situation amounts to a panic braking situation from data in the braking request.
In Re 5, Frevert in view of Kim, Kim further teaches the processing circuitry is configured to determine that a panic braking situation is different (fig 3 brake merely on s3 vs strong braking force s5) to an ordinary braking situation by determining a speed (para 36 construed as detecting acceleration of pedal, acceleration the derivative of velocity) in a brake pedal positional change.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Frevert DE 102021206807 (see attached google machine translation) in view of Park et al US 2019/0291735.
In Re 6, Frevert does not teach although Park teaches the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode comprises engaging the clutch so that torque from the drive wheels to the engine is transferred quicker therebetween than in the first clutch actuating engine restarting mode (figs 3,5 para 67 teaches to eliminate clutch engagement time delay under circumstance of braking being required quickly, i.e. when exiting sailing/coasting in front of a speed camera enforcement zone the clutch is engaged in an advance or more quickly). Park further teaches eliminating time delay to increase braking power with clutch paras 9-13,67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Park’s eliminated time delay to Frevert’s machine to enhance braking.
In Re 7, Frevert in view of Parker, Parker further teaches the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode comprises engaging the clutch so that torque from the drive wheels to the engine is transferred quicker therebetween than in the first clutch actuating engine restarting mode through a quicker response time in the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode than in the first clutch actuating engine restarting mode (figs 3,5 para 67 teaches to eliminate clutch engagement time delay under circumstance of braking being required quickly, i.e. when exiting sailing/coasting in front of a speed camera enforcement zone the clutch is engaged in an advance or more quickly).
In Re 8, Frevert in view of Parker, Parker further teaches a clutch engagement time for the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode is shorter than a clutch engagement time for the first clutch actuating engine restarting mode (inherent to reducing time delay per in re 7-8 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Improper modification of a secondary reference would be required to make a prior art rejection to satisfy claim limitations of “a torque transfer time from the drive wheels to the engine in the second clutch actuating engine restarting mode is at least 25 % faster than a torque transfer time from the drive wheels to the engine in the first clutch actuating engine restarting mode” note requirement of intervening base claims in view of the found prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The found prior art on the PTO-892 form not used in the rejection teaches entering exiting sailing/coasting/freewheeling modes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights