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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 21-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydraulic fluid line" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hydraulic fluid line" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 21-23 are rejected as being dependent of a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2022/0281591) in view of Ouyang et al. (CN 115556926), hereinafter Ouyang.
In re. claim 18, Allen teaches an architecture for a hydraulic steering control system, comprising: a hydraulic actuator (250) (para [0036]); a first conduit (266) fluidly coupled to the hydraulic actuator (fig. 4A); a second conduit (264) fluidly coupled to the hydraulic actuator (fig. 4A); a mode selection valve (270) moveable between a steering off position (i.e. when not pressurized), a steer left position (counterclockwise) (para [0048]), and a steer right position (clockwise) (para [0048]);;a first hydraulic fluid line whereby the mode selection valve receives hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic fluid source (fig. 4B); and a second hydraulic fluid line separate from the first hydraulic fluid line forming a first flow path that is separate from a second flow path of the first hydraulic fluid that is received by the mode selection valve from the hydraulic fluid source (fig. 4B); wherein, in the steer right position, the mode selection valve directs the hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator via the first conduit and away from the hydraulic actuator via the second conduit (fig. 4C) (para [0039]); and in the steer left position, the mode selection valve directs the hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator via the second conduit and away from the hydraulic actuator via the first conduit (fig. 4B) (para [0040]).
Allen fails to disclose a steering rate servo valve configured to control a flow rate of a hydraulic fluid being supplied to the mode selection valve from a hydraulic fluid.
Ouyang teaches a steering rate servo valve (27) configured to control a flow rate of a hydraulic fluid being supplied to the mode selection valve from a hydraulic fluid source (pressure oil through the one-way valve 18 to the electro-hydraulic servo valve 27, input 0-10V voltage signal through the electro-hydraulic servo valve 27, can control the valve core displacement of the electro-hydraulic servo valve 27, so as to control the flow rate of the A port and B port) (pg. 5, 2nd to last para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Allen to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to have the recited rate servo valve, in order to control the displacement and speed of the actuator in the front wheel steering hydraulic driving system (Ouyang, pg. 5, 2nd to last para.).
In re. claim 19, Allen as modified by Ouyang (see Ouyang) teach the architecture of claim 18, wherein the hydraulic actuator is configured to rotate a strut piston about a piston axis of rotation (via collar gear) (para [0033]-[0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose all of the features of the independent claims, including a second hydraulic fluid line separate from the first hydraulic fluid line whereby the steering rate servo valve receives hydraulic fluid pressure from the hydraulic fluid line, and a hydraulic fluid pressure is communicated between the hydraulic fluid source and the mode selection valve independent of the steering rate servo valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647