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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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: “switchover mechanism” in claims 8-11 and 19-22.
the claim limitation uses the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder.
the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, switching over.
the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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. Since the specification does not provide a structure for the “switchover mechanism”, it is interpreted as any structure or switch capable of performing the function of switching.
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 8-11 and 19-22 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. Neither the specification nor the drawings show the structure of the switchover mechanism.
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.
Claims 8-11 and 19-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 8-11 and 19- 22 recite the limitation " switchover mechanism". Neither the specification nor the drawings show the structure of the switchover mechanism. For examination purposes, the “switchover mechanism” is interpreted as any structure or switch capable of performing the function of switching.
Claims 9, 11, 20, and 22 recite the limitation "the switchover mechanism" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brocke et al. (US 2025/0136171 A1) hereinafter, Brocke.
Regarding claim 1, Brocke teaches a method for operating a hydrostatic vehicle steering system (16), comprising:
rotationally operating an input shaft (44) via a steering handle (26);
rotary operating a steering dosing valve (30) via an output shaft (46), the steering dosing valve used for hydraulic actuation of a steering cylinder (36) interacting with steerable vehicle wheels (20, 22);
establishing a releasable rotary connection between the input shaft and the output shaft via a clutch (62, Fig 1 and Para [0039]);
applying a predefinable steering torque to the output shaft via an actuating drive (58, Para [0056]);
automatically assuming a closed clutch position of the clutch under the effect of a restoring spring force (84) in a first operating mode (First Emergency Operating Mode, Second Emergency Operating Mode, First Assistance Mode) intended for manual steering operation (Para [0039] and [0043]); and
bringing the clutch into an open clutch position counter to the effect of the restoring spring force via a controller (94) in a second operating mode (Automatic Mode) intended for autonomous steering operation (Para [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Brocke teaches a hydrostatic vehicle steering system (16), comprising:
an input shaft (44), which can be rotationally operated via a steering handle (26);
an output shaft (46) for rotary operation of a steering dosing valve (30), which is used for hydraulic actuation of a steering cylinder (36) interacting with steerable vehicle wheels (20, 22);
an actuating drive (58) for applying a predefinable steering torque to the output shaft (Para [0055]- [0056]); and
a clutch (62) for establishing a releasable rotary connection between the input shaft and the output shaft, the clutch automatically assuming a closed clutch position under the effect of a restoring spring force (84) in a first operating mode (First Emergency Operating Mode, Second Emergency Operating Mode, First Assistance Mode) intended for manual steering operation (Para [0039] and [0043]), and the clutch being brought into an open clutch position counter to the effect of the restoring spring force via a controller (94) in a second operating mode (Automatic Mode) intended for autonomous steering operation (Para [0055]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Brocke teaches that wherein, in the first operating mode, the actuating drive is actuated by the controller to provide one or more of a haptically perceivable steering feedback (Para [0052]) and a reduction in steering operation forces to be applied by the operator (Para [0046]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Brocke teaches that wherein, in the second operating mode, the actuating drive is actuated by the controller according to steering commands predefined by an autonomous vehicle controller (114, Para [0055]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Brocke teaches that wherein, in the second operating mode, a free rotation of the input shaft is inhibited via a brake element (60) that is passive or can be operated by the controller (Para [0055]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Brocke teaches that wherein the actuating drive is an electric gear motor (64) that can be actuated by the controller (Para [0037]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Brocke teaches that wherein the clutch is switched over into the first operating mode from the second operating mode in the event one or more a manual steering operation exerted via the steering handle (Para [0043]- [0044]) and a pressure drop of a hydraulic source provided for feeding the steering dosing valve with pressurized hydraulic fluid (Para [0046]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Brocke teaches that wherein the clutch is electrically operated, wherein it automatically assumes the closed clutch position under the effect of a restoring spring force (84) of an electrically controllable switchover mechanism (86) when in the non-energized state (Para [0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 20-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 18 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: Claims 7 and 18 recite that the clutch is brought into the open clutch position, at the prompting of a switchover signal that can be generated via an operating arrangement, only when first and second trigger signals transmitted by the controller are present at the operating arrangement at the same time.
KR 20220060025 to Hyo discloses that a control unit may receive the steering angle signal and the steering torque signal, and control the clutch 420 or the second steering force by using the received steering torque signal (second paragraph of page 4). However, Hyo does not disclose a switchover signal that can be generated via an operating arrangement, only when first and second trigger signals transmitted by the controller are present at the operating arrangement at the same time.
Claims 10 and 21 recite that the clutch is designed to be operated by hydraulic pressure, wherein it automatically assumes the closed clutch position under the effect of a restoring spring force of a hydraulically controllable switchover mechanism when in the depressurized state.
KR 20220060025 to Hyo discloses a clutch that may have a clutch structure such as a fluid clutch (third to last paragraph of page 3). However, Hyo does not disclose that the clutch assumes the closed clutch position under the effect of a restoring spring force of a hydraulically controllable switchover mechanism when in the depressurized state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach hydrostatic vehicle steering systems of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, MINNAH SEOH can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611