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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 11, 2025, regarding the 112b claim rejections (page 4) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 claim rejections (page 4-7) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 5, para. 9: “Applicant submits…”) that combining Richardson with Le Loulay would not be obvious because the teachings of Richardson are intended for a truck and not an agricultural vehicle as is the claimed invention, the examiner disagrees. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and MPEP 2414.01(a). In this case, Richardson teaches various aspects of steering systems, and, even if the teachings of Richardson are not considered to be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, the teachings of a steering systems for large trucks are reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s particular problem- i.e. improved handling of an agricultural machine (written specification of the instant application, Para. [0002]).
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 6, para. 2: “Applicant submits…”- para. 6: “As Le Loulay…”) that combining Richardson with Le Loulay would not be obvious because of various incompatibilities between the designs of Richardson and Le Loulay, the examiner disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case, the pivoting type connection formed by Rod 21 and Slider 30 of Le Loulay could be redesigned to use a ball joint based on Richardson’s teachings without using the all the specific structure of Richardson.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 7, para. 1) that combining Dockter with Le Loulay would not be obvious because Dockter does not teach a vertical sliding movement, the examiner disagrees. The rejection is not based on the teachings of Dockter alone but on what the teachings of both Le Loulay and Dockter would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and MPEP 2145(IV).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 depends on the canceled claim 2. Because (a) the original claim 2 depended on claim 1, (b) the limitations of claim 2 were moved to claim 1, and (c) there is no other preceding claim that can serve as parent of Claim 3, for the purpose of examination claim 3 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6, and by extension claims 7 and 8, depend on the canceled claim 4. Based on Page 6, para. 7 of the Remarks referring to claim 6 as depending on claim 1, the prior art rejection below will assume dependence from claim 1, however note that this would also raise issues because claim 6 shares substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Since claim 5 also depends on claim 1, that would make the claims 5 and 6 duplicates. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Loulay (FR-3031069-A1) in view of Richardson (US-20100276901-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, Le Loulay teaches a motorized machine (Vehicle 1, Fig. 1a) comprising a chassis (Chassis 2, Fig. 1b),
a suspension system (characterized by Primary Ram 15 and Rod 21, Figs. 2a - 3b; described as a suspension in line 194) mechanically coupled on the one hand to a wheel (Wheel Assembly 5, Fig. 1a) of the motorized machine (Primary Ram 15 being coupled to Wheel Assembly 5 of Vehicle 1 through Wheel Support 12 as illustrated in Figs. 1a & 2a) and on the other hand to the chassis (Primary Ram 15 being coupled to Chassis 2 through Supports 19a & 19b as illustrated in Fig. 2a), and
a steering system (Steering Control System 6, Fig. 2a) configured to transmit steering to said wheel (5) of the motorized machine (1) through the suspension system (Steering Control System 6 transmitting steering through Rod 21 and Slider 30 as illustrated in Fig. 2a; Rod 21 being considered a part of the suspension system in that it accommodates a vertical movement of Wheel Assembly 5 relative to Chassis 2), the steering system (6) comprising a main connecting rod (Wheel Support 12, Fig. 2a; considered to be a connecting rod in that it connects Rod 21 and Piston 17 as illustrated in Fig. 2a) in a pivot-type mechanical connection with the chassis (lines 160-165 teach that Wheel Support 12 is pivotally connected to Chassis 2 through Cylinder 16 and Piston 17),
a deflector rod (Rod 21, Fig. 2a) mechanically coupled to the main connecting rod (Rod 21 being mechanically connected to Wheel Support 12 as illustrated in Fig. 2a) and oriented along an axis (formed vertically along the length of Primary Ram 15, Fig. 2a) of the suspension system (Rod 21 being disposed parallel to- i.e. along- the length of Primary Ram 15, as illustrated in Fig. 2a), and
a secondary connecting rod (Slider 30, Fig. 2a) mechanically coupled to the suspension system (Slider 30 being mechanically coupled to Primary Ram 15 through Secondary Cylinder 20 and Chassis 2 as illustrated in Fig. 2a) on the one hand and in a slide-type mechanical connection with the deflector rod on the other (Slider 30 being in a slide-type mechanical connection with Rod 21 as illustrated in Figs. 2a & 2b), so that the steering system (6) is in a slide-type mechanic connection with the suspension system (15, 21) along the axis of the suspension system (taught as discussed herein/ above).
a steering cylinder (Secondary Cylinder 20, Fig. 2a), wherein the steering system (6) comprises a steering rod (Piston 24, Fig. 2a) in a [not taught: ball joint-type] mechanical connection with the main connecting rod (Secondary Cylinder 20 being mechanically connected to Wheel Support 12 through Rod 21 and Slider 30 which form a type of pivoting connection as illustrated in Fig. 2a), the steering cylinder (20) being configured to transmit steering to the main connecting rod (12) through the steering rod (Secondary Cylinder 20 transmitting steering to Wheel Support 12 through Piston 24 as illustrated in Fig. 2a and described in lines 146-148), and
wherein the axis of the suspension system (15, 21) is substantially vertical (a suspension axis being formed vertically along the length of Primary Ram 15, Fig. 2a).
Le Loulay does not teach that the steering rod and main connecting rod connection is a ball joint-type.
Richardson teaches, in another steering system for a motorized machine (“steering system” for a “large truck”, Abstract), a steering rod (Tie Rod 24, Fig. 1), a main connecting rod (Relay Rod 22, Fig. 1), and a ball-joint type connection (Ball Joint 26, Fig. 1) between them.
Richardson further teaches that ball joints advantageously allow for 360 degrees of rotation about horizontal axes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the generic pivoting connection of Le Loulay with the ball joint-type of Richardson as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent pivoting connections recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Le Loulay and Richardson in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Le Loulay’s motorized machine to include a ball-joint connection as suggested by Richardson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of a large degree of rotational freedom allowed by a ball joint as taught by Richardson and discussed above that would beneficially make a joint with a higher degree of flexibility.
Regarding Claim 3, Le Loulay further teaches the suspension system (15, 21) comprising a suspension pivot rod (Piston 17, Fig. 2a) and a guide sleeve (Cylinder 16, Fig. 2a) configured to receive the suspension pivot rod (as illustrated in Fig. 2a), wherein the guide sleeve (16) is mechanically coupled to the chassis (Cylinder 16 being coupled to Chassis 2 through Supports 19a & 19b as illustrated in Fig. 2a) and is in a pivot-type mechanical connection with the main connecting rod (lines 160-165 and Fig. 2a teach that Wheel Support 12 is pivotally connected to Cylinder 16 through Piston 17), and in that the suspension pivot rod (17) is mechanically coupled on the one hand to the corresponding wheel (Piston 17 being connected to Wheel Assembly 5 through Wheel Support 12 as illustrated in Fig. 2a) and on the other hand to the secondary connecting rod (Piston 17 being connected to Secondary Cylinder 20 through Wheel Support 5, Rod 21 and Slider 30 and also through Cylinder 16, Supports 19a & 19b and Chassis 2 as illustrated in Fig. 2a) of the steering system (6).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Le Loulay further teaches a four-wheeled motorized machine (Vehicle 1 having four instances of Wheel Assembly 5 as illustrated in Fig. 1a), the motorized machine (1) comprising two suspension systems (15), two steering systems (6), each of the two suspension systems (15) and each of the two steering systems (6) being respectively associated with one and the other of the two front wheels (the instances of Wheel Assemblies 5 disposed in the foreground of Fig. 1a) of the motorized machine (there being two instances each of Primary Ram 15 and Steering Control System 6 illustrated in Fig. 1a, as understood by Fig. 2a; the two each instances being mounted to the front/ fore Wheel Assemblies 5 as illustrated in Figs. 1a & 2a).
Regarding Claim 9, Le Loulay, as modified by Richardson, teaches a method of forming a machine for vine crops using a motorized machine according to claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Le Loulay and Richardson, which teach a motorized machine, in which a method of forming the machine is implicitly taught).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Loulay and Richardson in view of Dockter (US-20190124820-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Le Loulay further teaches that the steering cylinder (20) consists of a double rod cylinder, each of the steering systems, associated respectively with one and the other of the two front wheels of the motorized machine, comprising a connecting part mechanically connecting the double rod cylinder to the corresponding steering rod.
Le Loulay does not teach a double rod cylinder associated with each of the two front wheels.
Dockter teaches, in another steering system (Abstract), a steering cylinder (Steering Actuator 53, Fig. 1) that consists of a double rod cylinder (Steering Actuator 53 having two instances of Rod 65 as illustrated in Fig. 1), two steering systems (characterized by Steering Linkages 56 and Common Rods 76, Fig. 1), associated respectively with one and the other of the two front wheels (an instance of each of Steering Linkages 56 and Common Rods 76 being connected to instances of Caster Wheels 27 as illustrated in Fig. 1; Caster Wheels 27 understood to be front wheels based on their position toward the front -left, Fig. 7- of Vehicle 62 as illustrated in Fig. 7) of a motorized machine (62), comprising a connecting part (Common Rods 76) mechanically connecting the double rod cylinder (53) to a corresponding steering rod (Common Rods 76 connecting Steering Actuator 53 to Steering Linkages 56 as illustrated in Fig. 1).
The steering cylinder (53) of Dockter is arranged substantially parallel to a shaft (“SFT”, Fig. 1 Annotated) connecting the two front wheels (27) of the motorized machine (Steering Actuator 53 being arranged substantially parallel to Shaft SFT as illustrated in Fig. 1; Shaft SFT connecting the two Caster Wheels 27 through Chassis 9 as illustrated in Figs. 1, 7, & 8) (note: these teachings relate to claim 8, as discussed below).
PNG
media_image1.png
848
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Le Loulay, Richardson, and Dockter in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Le Loulay’s motorized machine to include a double rod cylinder as suggested by Dockter. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of using a single actuator to provide steering so as to reduce the number of needed components that would beneficially make a cheaper and less complex steering system.
Regarding Claim 8, Le Loulay as modified above by Richardson and Dockter, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 5 above for the teachings of Richardson and motivation to combine them with the motorized machine of Le Loulay).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights