Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 an answer to an RCE filed on 2/13/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claimed Interpretations
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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, 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.
5. Claims 1, and 4-7, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tevis et al (US Pub 20200291609 A1) - hereafter “Tevis’609”), in view of Horstman (U.S. 9,227,478 B2) , and in view of Sonoda et al (US Pub. 20220325499 A1 – hereafter “Sonoda’499”).
A. Per independent claims 1, 7, and 13: Tevis’609 suggests a work machine comprising:
a vehicle body; a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body (i.e., a traction device 104 of Tevis’609);
a steering actuator configured to change a steering angle of the traveling wheel (e.g., “ steerable traction device 102 and driven traction device 104 to articulate about articulated joint 122 until the articulated angle” see Tevis’609 para. [0023]);
a leaning actuator configured to change/”control” a leaning angle of the traveling wheel (e.g., inputting “set point” to limit a range - see Tevis’609 para. [0003], [0007], [0008], [0013]):
Tevis’609 does not disclose about claimed term “an actual leaning angle”; however, Horstman teaches a leaning angle sensor configured to detect the leaning angle in view of Tevis’0609 (see Tevis’609 para. [0033] “As further shown in FIG. 5, process 500 may include causing an implement to rotate about an axis of rotation of the implement until a rotation angle associated with the implement corresponds to the displacement of the selector element of the input component (block 540). For example, the input component (e.g., using one or more processors, one or more memories, and/or the like) may cause an implement to rotate about an axis of rotation of the implement until a rotation angle associated with the implement corresponds to the displacement of the selector element of the input component, as described above.” see Tevis’609 para. [0033], [0037]) and Horstman column 8, lines 53-58 discloses "Wheel-lean angle sensor 316 is positioned to sense an indication of wheel-lean angle θ at a given moment, and to emit a signal indicative of such indication. The setpoint activation control 318 is operable by the operator to request that the present wheel-lean angle of the front wheels 20, 21 assume a wheel-lean angle setpoint." Horstman’s wheel-lean angles are actual wheel lean angles.
It 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 to implement Tevis’609 with Horstman so that the present (actual) wheel-lean angle would assume/become the wheel-lean angle setpoint requested by the work vehicle operator.
Tevis’609 also teaches a structure/controller configured to perform a steering control of traveling wheels by controlling the steering actuator, (see Tevis’609 para. [0003],[0023]): the controller being configured to acquire the leaning angle, and limit travel of the vehicle body (e.g., “ automatically control the work element to move ” in a direction, see Tevis’609 para. [0037]) or limit the automatic steering control according to the leaning angle (see Sonoda’499 Fig. 4).
Tevis’609 does not expressly disclose an automatically change of steering angle; however, Tevis’609 discloses the change of vehicle’s steering wheel(s) effects a change in leaning angle (e.g., “Control system 112 may cause wheels 114 to lean about a horizontal axis 118 to oppose a reaction force caused by DCM 110 engaging a work surface, or to adjust a height of DCM 110. Control system 112 may control a lean angle of wheels 114”see Tevis’609 Fig. 1 and para. [0013], para. [0003]; Sonoda’499 further discloses” an operator inputting a wheel-lean angle setpoint into an advanced display unit using a menu/select button, an up button, and a down button to increment and decrement a setpoint value until a desired setpoint is displayed. “) and Sonoda’499 suggests about an automatic steering control (see Sonoda’499 para. [0137]).
It 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 to implement Tevis’609 with Horseman, and with Sonoda’499 to suggests about using an automatic steering control to operate a work machine according to a predefined range of leaning angles in order to avoid any unbalance condition while remote control the work machine especially for power engines – this requirement has been successfully achieved.
B. Per dependent claims 4 and 10: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
The examiner submits that limiting an upper limit of a vehicle speed (e.g., according to a predetermined leaning angle) has been well-understood, and conventional practice for safety issues.
C. Per dependent claims 5 and 11: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tevis’609 also suggests a control unit to disable the automatic steering control according to the leaning angle (e.g., a well-understood limit of setting: if the leaning angle is out of range, the automatic steering control is disable/”not working” - Tevis’609 detects the “acceptable” leaning angle (see Tevis’609 para.[0033], [0037]).
D. Per dependent claims 6, and 12. The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 5 are incorporated.
Tevis’609 also suggests about setting ON/OFF of the automatic steering control (a well-known designer’s choice: using a manual control ON/OFF switch for extra control-ability), wherein the controller can disable the automatic steering control according to the leaning angle [regardless of an operation on the input device.] (if the leaning angle is out-of-range or “go beyond limit” – a well-understood condition in a design - Tevis’609 detects the “acceptable” leaning angle (see Tevis’609 para.[0033], [0037]).
6. Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tevis’609 , in view of Horstman, in view of Sonoda’499, and in view of Sonoda et (US 20220298749 A1 - hereafter “Sonoda’749”).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims about a controller to limit the travel of the vehicle body or limit the automatic steering control when the leaning angle. Tevis’609 fails to disclose an automatic steering control; however, Sonoda’749 suggests that structure when a preset range is not compliant (see Sonoda‘749 para. [0122]).
It 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 to implement a combination of Tevis’609, Horstman, and Sonoda’499 with Sonoda’749 because a steering control unit and front wheels are coupled together; therefore, they are directly/indirectly constrained to maintain a degree of balance to a work machine while operating with a limit range: an expected condition to a working machine to provide information to an operator which has been successfully achieved (see Tevis’609 para. [0004]) .
7. Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tevis’609, in view of Horstman, in view of Sonoda’499, and in view of Terada et al (US 2021/0316730 A1) - hereafter “Terada’730”).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tevis’609 in view of Sonoda’499 fail to disclose a power transmission device configured to be switched between a plurality of speed stages (e.g. 0053]), wherein the controller being configured to limit an upper limit of the plurality of speed stages according to the leaning angle (motivation: because controlling a front wheel’s speed is directly related to the leaning angle of said front wheel (see Terada‘730 para.[0168], [0181]).
It 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 to implement a combination of Tevis’609, Horstman, and Sonoda’499 with Terada’730 since this would effectively increasing a force applied to the driving wheels relative to the allowable force applied by the driver.to balance that working machine when traversing at an inclination surface.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664