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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on October 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 16, 2025, with respect to claims 3 and 5 rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said claims 3 and 5 rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed October 16, 2025 with respect to new claims 6-10 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection for new claims 6-10 are being made.
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 with respect to claims 1 and 4 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively as being anticipated by (HANAMOTO – US 2007/0062741 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained below.
Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited prior art fails to discloses “…a second actuator for turning a second set of steerable vehicle wheels connected with a second axle of the vehicle; a third actuator for turning a third set of steerable vehicle wheels connected with a third axle of the vehicle; and a control unit that controls the second and third actuators connected with the second and third axles to turn the second set of steerable vehicle wheels and the third set of steerable vehicle wheels…”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claims 1 and 4 as on record does not specifies that the second actuator is configured to change a steering angle of the second set of steerable vehicle wheels, the third actuator is configured to change a steering angle of the third set of steerable vehicle wheels, {{{both independently from each other}}}.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Claims 3 and 5 are objected as allowable subject matter.
New Claims 6-10 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-10 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are 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, provided the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are solved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (HANAMOTO – US 2007/0062741 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HANAMOTO (Figs. 1-3) discloses:
An apparatus for controlling a vehicle (hydraulic-drive work vehicle: Fig. 1) comprising:
a first actuator (motor-side unit 15: Fig. 2) for turning a first set of steerable vehicle wheels (First one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) connected with a first axle (first axle 1) of the vehicle (hydraulic-drive work vehicle: Fig. 1), the first actuator turning the first set of steerable vehicle wheels (First one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) connected with the first axle to cause the vehicle (hydraulic-drive work vehicle: Fig. 1) to turn and travel along a desired path;
a second actuator (motor-side unit 16: Fig. 2) for turning a second set of steerable vehicle wheels (Second one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) connected with a second axle (second axle 2) of the vehicle (hydraulic-drive work vehicle: Fig. 1);
a third actuator (motor-side unit 17: Fig. 2) for turning a third set of steerable vehicle wheels (Third one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) connected with a third axle (third axle 3) of the vehicle (hydraulic-drive work vehicle: Fig. 1); and
a control unit (controller 46: Fig. 1) that controls the second and third actuators (Second and Third one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) connected with the second and third axles (second axle 2 and third axle 3) to turn the second set of steerable vehicle wheels (Second one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) and the third set of steerable vehicle wheels (Third one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]).
Claim 1 and 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (SLAVE – US 2020/0039581 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SLAVE discloses:
An apparatus for controlling a vehicle (vehicle 10: Figs. 1-4B) comprising:
a first actuator (hydraulic actuator 50: Fig. 2) for turning a first set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels 22 on first steered axle 12: Fig. 2) connected with a first axle (first steered axle 12: Fig. 2) of the vehicle (vehicle 10: Figs. 1-4B), the first actuator turning the first set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels 22 on first steered axle 12: Fig. 2) connected with the first axle to cause the vehicle (vehicle 10: Figs. 1-4B) to turn and travel along a desired path;
a second actuator (electric steering motor 16: Fig. 2 and [0025, 0039]) for turning a second set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels 22 on second steered axle 14: Fig. 2) connected with a second axle (second steered axle 14: Fig. 2) of the vehicle (vehicle 10: Figs. 1-4B);
a third actuator (another or second electric motor in view of “As another example, one or both of the third axle 32 and the fourth axle 34 may be a steered axle, i.e., may steer the wheels 22 as described above”: [0032]) for turning a third set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels on third axle 32: Fig. 2) connected with a third axle (third axle 32: Fig. 2) of the vehicle (vehicle 10: Figs. 1-4B); and
a control unit (processor 18 and a memory 20: Fig. 5 and [0025]) that controls the second and third actuators (electric steering motor 16 and another electric motor: Fig. 2 and [0032]) connected with the second and third axles (second steered axle 14 and third axle 32: Fig. 2) to turn the second set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels 22 on second steered axle 14: Fig. 2) and the third set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels on third axle 32: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, SLAVE disclose the apparatus for controlling a vehicle according to claim 1, and further on SLAVE also discloses:
wherein the first actuator (hydraulic actuator 50: Fig. 2) is configured to change a steering angle of the first set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels 22 on first steered axle 12: Fig. 2), the second actuator (electric steering motor 16: Fig. 2 and [0025, 0039]) being configured to change a steering angle of the second set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels 22 on second steered axle 14: Fig. 2), the third actuator (another or second electric motor in view of “As another example, one or both of the third axle 32 and the fourth axle 34 may be a steered axle, i.e., may steer the wheels 22 as described above”: [0032]) being configured to change a steering angle of the third set of steerable vehicle wheels (wheels on third axle 32: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, SLAVE disclose the apparatus for controlling a vehicle according to claim 1, and further on SLAVE also discloses:
wherein the first, second and third axles (first steered axle 12, second steered axle 14 and third axle 32: Fig. 2) extend parallel to each other at all times.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (HANAMOTO – US 2007/0062741 A1), in view of (KOSTECKI – WO 2006/005124 A1).
Regarding claim 4, HANAMOTO discloses:
A method for controlling a vehicle (hydraulic-drive work vehicle: Fig. 1) having a first axle (first axle 1) with a first set of steerable vehicle wheels (First one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]), a second axle (second axle 2) with a second set of steerable vehicle wheels (Second one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]) and a third axle (third axle 3) with third set of steerable vehicle wheels (Third one of left and right wheels 4L and 4R of the axles 1 to 3: Fig. 1 and [0031-0033]).
But HANAMOTO does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) sensing a lateral aerodynamic force acting on the vehicle; and turning the second set of steerable vehicle wheels on the second axle and turning the third set of steerable vehicle wheels on the third axle in response to the lateral aerodynamic force acting on the vehicle to eliminate, reject or reduce the yaw moment and lateral force acting on the vehicle due to the aerodynamic force.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, KOSTECKI discloses/teaches the following:
At least one sensor is provided an output of which is dependent on lateral force exerted on one or more of the rear wheels of the vehicle. The sensor output is inputted into the controller which calculates an angle of steer of the one or more pairs of rear wheels. The controller actuating a steering means to move the one or more pairs of rear wheels to the calculated angle of steer (Abstract).
The controller might thus require the presence of the lateral force to be present at more than one time. It will be understood that the controller, when operational, will thus preferably effect the calculation at multiple times temporally spaced. The time sampling may be desired to be dependent on the speed of the vehicle but is determined to be adequately responsive to probably changes in conditions ([0073]).
Thus a tyre lateral force sensor might be used to give the most straight forward measure of lateral force on the tyre, a change in that value of a time may provide a more reliable value for purposes of calculating a steering angle. Alternatively it might be desired to use a load sensor for wheels, or suspension components on opposing sides of the axle, the controller will make a comparison of the two values and a difference may be reflective of lateral forces acting on the one or more wheel, this is particularly so where there are changes or progressively increasing changes in the difference ([0068]).
Other sensors that might indicate a tyre lateral force could include a roll rate sensor, or yaw sensor. These later sensors might perhaps be used a secondary input into the controller for purposes of calculating the angle of steer to be adopted. The angle of steer to be adopted might also be modified somewhat dependent on conditions of the trailer, and these include the speed of the vehicle. Thus a speed sensor such as will typically be a transmission sensor may be used. Travel over a certain speed may indicate that the vehicle is engaged in highway travel and block the activation of the rear wheel steering means, or alternatively reduce the degree of turning. The overall load of the vehicle will also impact on the degree of steering required, or may have ramifications on the accuracy of the sensors referred to above. A further input of use in the determining the angle of steer of the one or more rear wheels is the angle of steer of the front wheels, the controller may, for example, calculate a steering angle on the rear wheels when the front wheels steer angle is over a specified value, particularly at very low speed, where lateral forces may not be that high, for example, in an unloaded vehicle. The tyre scuffing when turning will exert lateral forces on to the axle or bogey carrying the steerable wheels and this lateral force may conveniently be measured by a linear potentiometer or pressure sensor positioned to measure the lateral force thereon ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vehicle system of HANAMOTO incorporating sensing a lateral aerodynamic force acting on the vehicle as taught by KOSTECKI to allow the flexibility to take into account a range of conditions that might impact on providing for appropriate angle of steer for the rear wheels.
Regarding claim 2, HANAMOTO disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
But HANAMOTO does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) a sensor that sends a signal indicative of a lateral aerodynamic force acting on the vehicle, the control unit controlling the second and third actuators in response to the signal to turn the second set and third set of steerable vehicle wheels connected with the second and third axles and eliminate, reject or reduce the yaw moment and lateral force acting on the vehicle due to the aerodynamic force.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, KOSTECKI discloses/teaches the following:
At least one sensor is provided an output of which is dependent on lateral force exerted on one or more of the rear wheels of the vehicle. The sensor output is inputted into the controller which calculates an angle of steer of the one or more pairs of rear wheels. The controller actuating a steering means to move the one or more pairs of rear wheels to the calculated angle of steer (Abstract).
The controller might thus require the presence of the lateral force to be present at more than one time. It will be understood that the controller, when operational, will thus preferably effect the calculation at multiple times temporally spaced. The time sampling may be desired to be dependent on the speed of the vehicle but is determined to be adequately responsive to probably changes in conditions ([0073]).
Thus a tyre lateral force sensor might be used to give the most straight forward measure of lateral force on the tyre, a change in that value of a time may provide a more reliable value for purposes of calculating a steering angle. Alternatively it might be desired to use a load sensor for wheels, or suspension components on opposing sides of the axle, the controller will make a comparison of the two values and a difference may be reflective of lateral forces acting on the one or more wheel, this is particularly so where there are changes or progressively increasing changes in the difference ([0068]).
Other sensors that might indicate a tyre lateral force could include a roll rate sensor, or yaw sensor. These later sensors might perhaps be used a secondary input into the controller for purposes of calculating the angle of steer to be adopted. The angle of steer to be adopted might also be modified somewhat dependent on conditions of the trailer, and these include the speed of the vehicle. Thus a speed sensor such as will typically be a transmission sensor may be used. Travel over a certain speed may indicate that the vehicle is engaged in highway travel and block the activation of the rear wheel steering means, or alternatively reduce the degree of turning. The overall load of the vehicle will also impact on the degree of steering required, or may have ramifications on the accuracy of the sensors referred to above. A further input of use in the determining the angle of steer of the one or more rear wheels is the angle of steer of the front wheels, the controller may, for example, calculate a steering angle on the rear wheels when the front wheels steer angle is over a specified value, particularly at very low speed, where lateral forces may not be that high, for example, in an unloaded vehicle. The tyre scuffing when turning will exert lateral forces on to the axle or bogey carrying the steerable wheels and this lateral force may conveniently be measured by a linear potentiometer or pressure sensor positioned to measure the lateral force thereon ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vehicle system of HANAMOTO incorporating sensing a lateral aerodynamic force acting on the vehicle as taught by KOSTECKI to allow the flexibility to take into account a range of conditions that might impact on providing for appropriate angle of steer for the rear wheels.
Regarding claim 8, HANAMOTO as combined Above disclose the apparatus for controlling a vehicle according to claim 4, and further on HANAMOTO as combined Above also discloses:
wherein the steps of turning the second set of steerable vehicle wheels on the second axle and turning the third set of steerable vehicle wheels on the third axle includes changing a steering angle of the second set of steerable vehicle wheels and changing a steering angle of the third set of steerable vehicle wheels (Please see HANAMOTO as combined Above).
Regarding claim 9, HANAMOTO as combined Above disclose the apparatus for controlling a vehicle according to claim 4, and further on HANAMOTO as combined Above also discloses:
wherein the first, second and third axles extend parallel to each other at all times (Please see HANAMOTO as combined Above).
Regarding claim 10, HANAMOTO as combined Above disclose the apparatus for controlling a vehicle according to claim 4, and further on HANAMOTO as combined Above also discloses:
turning the first set of steerable vehicle wheels with a first actuator, the step of turning the second set of steerable vehicle wheels includes actuating a second actuator to turn the second set of steerable vehicle wheels, the step of turning the third set of steerable vehicle wheels includes actuating a third actuator to turn the third set of steerable vehicle wheels (Please see HANAMOTO as combined Above).
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 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 Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747