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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
2. Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that “Maruyama determines end positions of the rack- in order to calculate a reference point - the center position of the rack. In contrast, independent Claim 1, recites "automatically steering a steered wheel ... [where] in the automatic steering mode ... turning angle determination processing [is executed] by determining whether the steered wheel is in a fully turned state," which Maruyama fails to disclose”.
This argument is not persuasive. The passage (P2) and features of Maruyama referenced by the Applicant (calculating a reference point - the center position of the rack) were not relied upon in the rejection and are not relevant to the rejection. And this feature of Maruyama referenced by the Applicant is not mutually exclusive to the claim language as suggested by the Applicant.
Maruyama discloses automatically steering a steered wheel ([0022]: “The electric power steering device according to the present embodiment can be mounted in, for example, a vehicle (not illustrated) whose traveling can be controlled by autonomous driving (AD) or ADAS.”)... [where] in the automatic steering mode [but necessarily only in the automatic steering mode]... turning angle determination processing [is executed] by determining whether the steered wheel is in a fully turned state (see rejection below).
3. Applicant argues on page 6 that “In contrast to Maruyama, which determines end positions of a rack during a rack end learning process, independent Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "in automatic steering mode ... executing turning angle determination processing (S401) of determining whether the steered wheel is in a fully turned state in which the steered wheel is steered to a maximum turning angle on the basis of a turning angle determination condition," which Maruyama fails to disclose.”
This argument is not persuasive. Maruyama describes throughout his specification determining whether the steered wheel is in the fully turned state, in which the steered wheel is steered to a maximum turning angle (steering rack end), on the basis of various conditions that qualify as “a turning angle determination condition” (see copied cites and rejection below). Please note that “a turning angle determination condition” can be interpreted broadly to mean any condition related to a turning angle determination. And contrary to the Applicant’s suggestion, Maruyama does not only disclose this limitation during a rack end learning process.
See for example in US PG-PUB and corresponding EP publication, same passages:
abstract, Figs. 6-7: checking if steering torque is greater than threshold to detect the rack end,
“US [0105]/ EP [0075] The threshold Th.sub.u is set to a value indicating that the steering angle has reached the rack end, and the fact that the steering angle has reached the rack end is stored by turning ON the flag”,
“US [0110]/ EP [0080] As described above, in the limit value learning processing of the present embodiment, it is determined in S708 that the rack end has been reached once and it is determined in S712 that the deformation of the mechanism portion has been eliminated. In this manner, the left and right rack end positions in the turning device can be detected with higher precision.”,
“US [0113]/ EP [0084] The description of the above embodiments is on the premise that a driver operates the steering wheel 1. However, the present invention is not limited to this configuration. For example, the rack end position may be detected by performing the steering angle operation on the vehicle side as part of the driving support function…”
“US [0121]/ EP [0092]: 1 As described above, the followings are disclosed in this specification. [0122] (1) A detection device for detecting respective end positions in left and right steering directions of a mechanism portion of a turning device, the device including: [0123] a steering angle detection unit configured to detect a steering angle in the mechanism portion; [0124] an actuator driving the mechanism portion; [0125] a torque detection unit configured to detect steering torque to the mechanism portion; and [0126] a limit position detection unit configured to detect respective limit positions in the left and right steering directions in the mechanism portion, in which [0127] the limit position detection unit starts detecting the limit position of the steering angle in a direction of a torque value when the torque value of the mechanism portion loaded by at least one of a drive force from the actuator and the steering torque detected by the torque detection unit exceeds a first threshold, [0128] continues to detect the limit position by storing a peak value of the steering angle detected by the steering angle detection unit as the limit position while the torque value of the mechanism portion is between the first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, and [0129] ends the detection of the limit position by regarding the stored limit position as the end position in the steering direction indicated by the torque value when the torque value of the mechanism portion exceeds the second threshold.”
“US [0145]/ EP [0092]: 7-8 According to this configuration, it is possible to detect the rack end position in view of the deformation (e.g. twist) of the mechanism portion caused by the overload on the mechanism portion. [0146] (8) The detection device according to (7), in which the amount of deformation of the mechanism portion is derived based on at least one of a torque axis current or a torque axis current command value of the mechanism portion, a torque constant of the mechanism portion, a reduction ratio of the actuator, and rigidity of the mechanism portion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 4 086 148, see also corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2024/0140525) in view of Tuttle (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 9,561,819).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Maruyama discloses a control method of a vehicle (Fig. 5 or 6) having an automatic steering mode ([0022], [0084]) for automatically steering a steered wheel (SL, SR) using a motor (20), comprising:
in the automatic steering mode ([0022], [0084], etc: but necessarily only in the automatic steering mode),
controlling the motor ([0022], etc); and
executing turning angle determination processing by determining whether the steered wheel is in a fully turned state in which the steered wheel is steered to a maximum turning angle (steering rack end) on the basis of a turning angle determination condition (“a turning angle determination condition” can be interpreted broadly to mean any condition related to a turning angle determination) (abstract, Fig. 6-7: checking if steering torque is greater than threshold to detect the rack end, [0075], [0080], [0084], [0092]: 1, 7-8, claims 1 and 13-15 {or US PG-PUB [0105], [0110], [0113], [0121]-[0129], [0145]-[0146], claims 1 and 13-15}, and EP paragraphs [0035], [0046], [0048], [0055] - [0069], etc).
Maruyama does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle is a work vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Tuttle discloses a work vehicle (abstract, Fig. 1, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maruyama to use a work vehicle, as taught by Tuttle, in order to apply the advantages of the turning angle determination (such as more precisely detecting the left and right end positions of the turning device, [0005] – [0006]) to a work vehicle (Tuttle abstract, Fig. 1, etc), with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Maruyama further discloses that the maximum turning angle is defined by a stopper mechanism that limits a movable range of the steered wheel ([0035], [0046], [0048] [0055] - [0069], etc: at rack end).
Regarding claim 3, Maruyama further discloses that the turning angle determination condition includes a torque condition related to torque of the motor (step S610 in Fig. 6, etc).
Regarding claim 4, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the turning angle determination condition includes a change rate condition related to a change rate of a steering angle of the steered wheel (see for example Saal # US 2018/0237062 [0049] - [0069], etc). The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
Regarding claim 5, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the turning angle determination condition includes an absolute value of a steering angle of the steered wheel being equal to or more than a threshold angle (see for example Saal # US 2018/0237062 [0049] - [0069], etc). The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
Regarding claim 6, Maruyama further discloses setting a maximum steering angle in the automatic steering on the basis of a steering angle of the steered wheel when the steered wheel is determined to be in the fully turned state by the turning angle determination processing (S612 in Fig. 6, etc).
Regarding claim 7, Maruyama further discloses that the maximum steering angle in the automatic steering is set to a value obtained by subtracting a margin from the steering angle of the steered wheel when the steered wheel is determined to be in the fully turned state by the turning angle determination processing (see "angle limitation" in paragraph [0085], etc).
Regarding claim 8, Maruyama further discloses that the maximum steering angle is individually set for each of steering directions of the steered wheel (see S502 in Fig.5, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Maruyama further discloses that the turning angle determination processing is ended when the maximum steering angle is set (Figs. 6 and 7, etc).
Regarding claim 10, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a turning angle determination processing to be executed each time the automatic steering mode is started. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
Regarding claim 11, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when the steered wheel is determined to be in the fully turned state by the turning angle determination processing, limiting torque of the motor over a limited period (see for example Kifuku # US 2003/0045981 steering motor current limitation in Figs. 11 and 13 - 16, etc). The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
Regarding claim 12, Maruyama further discloses a work vehicle control program for causing one or more processors to execute the control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1 (Fig. 5 - 6 and paragraphs [0022], [0035], [0046], [0048] [0055] - [0069], etc).
Regarding claim 14, Maruyama further discloses a work system comprising: the work vehicle control system according to claim 13; and a machine body of the work vehicle (Fig. 1, etc).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
January 10, 2026