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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a Power of Attorney paper filed on 1/07/2026.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection 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.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (a DE application with priority date back to 12/08/2021).
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Applicant filed an IDS on 6/05/2024; the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim interpretations
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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.
7. 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 “...a control unit configured to. place..” (see applicant’s page 9 of 15 line 6; “...is configured so that...” in claim 2 line 2 ; “...being configured to...” in claim 4 line 3; “...selector configured to” in claim 8 line 3; “...are configured so that...” in claim 8 line 6; “...are configured so that ...” in claim 8 line 9; and in claim 8 line 12; “a control unit configured to...” in claim 16 line 20; “...is configured such that ...” in claim 17 lines 1-2; “...is configured to steer...” in claim 19 line 4; 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 are: “... configured to ...” and “...are configured so that...”.
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.
11. 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.
12. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
14. Claims 1-3, 5, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sang Heon (WO 2021015528 A1 hereafter Lee’528).
A. Per independent claims 1, and 16-17: Lee’528 teaches a handling machine comprising:
- a mobile chassis (e.g., a frame/body of a vehicle; see Lee’528, the abstract);
- a handling/operating system including at least one handling member that can be actuated by an actuator hydraulic cylinder, (see Lee’528, “while the manual steering is performed, the working fluid supplied from the manual steering unit 4 to the steering cylinder 120 does not leak through the first automatic shut-off valve 61 to the steering cylinder 120.”); and
- a steering system in Lee’528 vehicle, including
- a hydraulic steering circuit including steering cylinders (see Lee’528, the abstract, and pg. 28, 3rd para. “the front end of the automatic steering unit 3”) for steering some wheels of the machine handling machine (e.g., controlling front-wheel drive),
- a first hydraulic control circuit connected to the hydraulic steering circuit to supply fluid the steering cylinders (see Lee’528, “automatic steering unit includes a shuttle valve connected to each of a first steering line connected to one side of the steering cylinder and a second steering line connected to the other side of the steering cylinder,”) and
a manual steering device (see Lee’528, pg. 13 para. 3) “the manual supply line 4a”, and
- second hydraulic control circuit used at least to control the hydraulic actuator of a cylinder of the handling member (e.g., controlling a hydraulic steering unit, see Lee’528, the abstract),
: wherein the second hydraulic control circuit includes:
- a hydraulic distributor (e.g., using valves - see Lee’528, “a steering control unit 12” “is connected to the steering pump 11 and the steering cylinder 13. ”):
a hydraulic connection circuit connected to the hydraulic steering circuit (3), and circuit,
a diverter to which hydraulic connection circuit, the actuator hydraulic cylinder for actuating a handling the handling member, and the hydraulic distributor (210) distributor are connected, the diverter (220) diverter being electrically controllable to selectively (see Lee’528 pg. 21, 2nd paragraph: “The working fluid flowing along the switching supply line 5a is partially diverted to the first switching control line 5c and then flows along the first switching control line 5c while the manual switching valve 51”) assume selectively:
a first state in which the hydraulic distributor of the second hydraulic control circuit is connected to the actuator hydraulic
cylinder of the handling member (see Lee’528 pg. 20 1st paragraph wherein a diverting feature is controlled by switching supply line 5a), and
- a second state in which the hydraulic distributor of the second hydraulic control circuit is connected to the hydraulic connection circuit to enable the second hydraulic control circuit to control the steering cylinders (e.g., see Lee’528, the abstract teaches about controlling steering modes/states including manual or automatic steering for hydraulic switching) and
a unit to control the diverter’s (e.g., a controller/processor to diverting a hydraulic flow, see Lee’528 pg. 21, 2nd para) second state to execute handling machine steering control program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’528 to disclose about controlling a distributor with a different stage as a fine tuning from a first stage which increases a degree of accuracy during steering.
B. Per independent claim 16: This claim covers obvious limitations of independent claim 1, with similar limitations in body claim 1; the claimed features may be used for different intentions; therefore, similar rationales, and reference are applied for an obvious rejection.
C. Per dependent claim 2: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Lee’528 teaches that a hydraulic steering circuit is manually controllable (see Lee’528, the abstract).
D. Per dependent claim 3: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims that hydraulic control circuits, and hydraulic steering circuits are integrated in a vehicle; Lee’528 suggests this requirement (see Lee’528, the abstract, and pg.8 last para.).
E. Per dependent claim 5: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Lee’528 suggests a control circuit having a second hydraulic control circuit connecting to a first hydraulic control circuit in a vehicle (e.g., by using a diverter, see Lee’528, the abstract, and pg. 21, 2nd para).
F. Per dependent claims 17-19: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 16 are incorporated.
Lee’528 also suggests a wheel controlling/steering system via a manual steering device while another hydraulic control circuit is active. (see Lee’528 pg. 12 paraa.4) “...the first hydraulic chamber 120a and the second hydraulic chamber 120b under the control of the control unit 130 (shown in FIG. 2), and the working fluid may be discharged from the other of the first hydraulic chamber 120a and the second hydraulic chamber 120b. The working fluid discharged from the steering cylinder 120 is supplied to the manual steering unit 4 through the manual supply line 4a, and discharged to the external device 140 through the manual steering unit 4...”
G. Per dependent claim 20: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 16 are incorporated.
Lee’528 also suggests a handling machine wherein the second hydraulic control circuit is
connected to the first hydraulic control circuit via the hydraulic steering circuit (e.g., Lee’528 pg. 21, 2nd paragraph) uses a diverter for connecting/controlling hydraulic valves).
15. Claims 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’528 in view of Rushton et al (US 11846089 B2).
A. Per dependent claims 4, and 6: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Lee’528 does not expressly disclose a hydraulic steering circuit to enable/selecting steering of at least the front wheels; however, Rushton et al suggest that claimed feature (e.g., select “4-wheel steering” see Rushton‘089 col. 16 lines 30-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’528 with Rushton et al because they both work in the same field of endeavor to improve a driving capability of a work engine.
B. Per dependent claim 7. The references and rationales for a rejection of claim 6 are incorporated.
Lee’528 already suggests a structure of a hydraulic steering circuit for selecting the wheels to be steered, having a first hydraulic control circuit, and a second hydraulic control circuit (see Lee’528, pg. 71 line 15-18, “automatic steering unit includes a shuttle valve connected to each of a first steering line connected to one side of the steering cylinder and a second steering line connected to the other side of the steering cylinder,”); and switching states (see Lee’528 pg. 21, 2nd para., wherein a diverting feature is controlled by switching supply line 5a),
C. Per dependent claim 9. The references and rationales for a rejection of claim 6 are incorporated.
Lee’528 already suggests a structure for selecting a fluid line by using the hydraulic control/valve (see Lee’528 wherein a diverting feature is controlled/selected by switching a supply line 5a),
16. Claims 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’528 in view of Eagles (US Pub 20200247466 A1
A. Per dependent claim 8: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Lee’528 fails to expressly disclose a handling vehicle with front-wheels, real-wheel, or all-wheels abilities; however, Eagles discloses a vehicle with hydraulic steering control system 120 having control abilities such as front-wheels, real-wheel, or all-wheels control (see Eagles, para. [0014], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’528 with Eagles because they both used hydraulic valves to control their vehicles’ steering modes (see Eagles, para. [0048]).
B. Per dependent claim 10: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Eagles also suggests a hydraulic line is connected to another hydraulic line by a controlled valve of the diverter (see Eagles, claim 1 “a steering cylinder operatively connected the steerable wheel and to the first direction control valve output and to the second direction control valve output, wherein one of the first direction control valve output and the second direction control valve output moves the steerable wheel in a first direction and the other of the first direction control valve output and the second direction control valve output moves the steerable wheel in a second direction.”).
17. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’528 in view of Engler et al. (DE 102020103320A1)
A. Per dependent claim 11: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Lee’528 fails to expressly disclose a handling machine contains a tool-holder; however, Engler’320 suggests a hydraulic vehicle having a tool holder to exchange a proper tool if necessary (e.g., “one tool holding device” see Engler’320, page 2, 1st para.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’528 with Engler et al.because they both using hydraulic valves to control their vehicles ‘steering modes having different tools for changing at the work site (e.g., “the tool holding device”, see Engler’320, pg. 11, 2nd para)
B. Per dependent claim 12: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Lee’528 fails to expressly disclose a handling machine contains a tool-holder; however, Engler’320 also suggests a hydraulic vehicle having pressure limiter device (e.g., “a pressure limiting valve being provided for pressure limitation.” see Engler’320 pg. 11 2nd para.)
18. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’528 in view of Engler et al., and further in view of Sun (CN 201873495 U).
The references and rationales for a rejection of claim 12 are incorporated.
A. Per dependent claim 13:
A combination of Lee’528, and Engler et al fail to disclose that the pressure limiter device includes a dual balancing valve; however, Sun teaches that feature.(see Sun [0018] “ the overflow valve 19 is located in the integrated oil inlet end of the electromagnetic reversing valve 17 to limit the loading variable amplitude, the maximum working pressure of the rotating, arm support extension loop, and oil from overload protection system. the overflow valve 20 located on the leg oil path oil inlet end, limiting the maximum working pressure of leg oil path, and it has overload protection function, the balance valve 21 and balance valve 22 are all made of the same structure, the balance valve 21 and valve 22 to ensure balanced amplitude and flex arm mechanism constant velocity movement. and functions as a hydraulic lock, upon connection with the oil cylinder of pipeline cracking, it can prevent the boom from dropping suddenly or retracted to cause accident, ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’528 and Engler et al with Sun because they are using hydraulic valves to safely control flows of hydraulic fluid with an available dual balancing valve as taught by Sun para. [0018]).
B. Per dependent claim 14: Engler’320 also suggests a pressure limiter device of the hydraulic control circuit is situated between a steering pump of the hydraulic control circuit and the hydraulic steering circuit to protect sensitive equipment from overpressure damages (see Engler’320 pg. 11, paragraphs 1-2).
C. Per dependent claim 15: Engler’320 also suggests a pressure limiter device of the hydraulic control circuit is in the connecting circuit between the pressure limiter device of the second hydraulic control circuit is used to protect sensitive equipment from excess catastrophic failure (see Engler’320 pg. 11, 2nd paragraph, pg. 22, 3rd para.).
Conclusion
19. Pending claims 1-20 are rejected.
20. 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 PAIR. 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 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights