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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/19/26 (hereinafter Response) including amendments to the claims has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 3, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The second line of the paragraph beginning with “Working principle:” on page 5 of the Specification recites the phrase “steeling angle” which should be changed to “steering angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim objections to claim 3 and claim 18 are withdrawn based on amendments submitted in the Response.
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 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6 – 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015222098 A1 to Pfetsch et al (hereinafter Pfetsch,) in view of CN 108147325 A to Li et al (hereinafter Li), and further in view of CN 111267948 A to Zhao et al (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 1, Pfetsch discloses [an independent electronic steering axle] (complete assembly shown in Fig. 2; paragraph 0025), comprising:
[a swing axle (30), wherein the swing axle is rotatably connected to a vehicle body (40)] (Figs. 1 – 3; paragraphs 0015, 0024, 0025);
[wheel frames (20a), wherein the wheel frames are respectively arranged at two ends (E1, E2) of the swing axle] (Annotated Fig. 2, below), [upper parts (U) of the wheel frames are respectively rotatably connected to the two ends of the swing axle through rotary support members (RS), and a lower part of each of the wheel frames is mounted with a steering wheel (20)] (Ann. Fig. 2; paragraph 0024 discloses that the wheel frames and the steering wheels pivot via “gear meshing”);
[steering motors (26), wherein the steering motors are respectively arranged at the two ends of the swing axle] (Ann. Fig. 2; paragraph 0024);
[each of the steering motors is electrically connected to a motor controller (102a, 102b), and the motor controller is electrically connected to a main controller (100)] (Fig. 4; paragraph 0026);
[feedback assemblies (108), wherein the feedback assemblies are respectively arranged at the two ends of the swing axle] (paragraph 0013 discloses each of the feedback assemblies as a sensor unit for detecting steering angle within a respective “turntable drive”; paragraph 0024 discloses each turntable drive as element 22; Ann. Fig. 2 illustrates that the feedback assemblies are respectively arranged at the two ends of the swing axle within respective element 22) and [each of the feedback assemblies is electrically connected to the main controller] (Fig. 4; paragraph 0027),
[wherein the motor controllers are configured to control the rotating speed, start and stop of the steering motors, and wherein the main controller is configured to issue commands to the motor controllers] (Fig. 4; paragraph 0026) and [receive and determine position signals of the two steering wheels of the feedback assemblies] (Fig. 4; paragraph 0027),
however, Pfetsch does not appear to explicitly disclose a rotary rack wheel, a steering gear, specific mounting arrangements of controllers, or that the feedback assemblies are drivingly connected to the rotary rack wheel, although Pfetsch does disclose in paragraph 0024 that the steering motors are in rotational communication with the wheel frames via “gear meshing”.
Li teaches that it was old and well known in the art of independent electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for [an independent electronic steering axle (113) to include a rotary rack wheel (113a) mounted on a wheel frame (112)] (Fig. 5; paragraph 0048), wherein: [a power output shaft of a steering motor (142) is provided with a steering gear (141) engaged with the rotary rack wheel via element (143)] (Fig. 5; paragraph 0048); and [a feedback assembly (120) is drivingly connected to the rotary rack wheel and electrically connected to a controller] (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0016, 0050 – 0053).
Li further teaches:
element 143 is a reducer and the power output shaft of each of the steering motors is drivingly connected to the reducer, the steering gear engaged with the rotary rack wheel is mounted on an output shaft of the reducer (Fig. 5; paragraph 0048);
the feedback assemblies of Li (120) comprising:
at least one of encoders (123) and potentiometers (124), wherein at least one of the encoders and the potentiometers are respectively arranged at the two ends of the swing axle and electrically connected to the main controller, and an input shaft (121a) of each of at least one of the encoders and potentiometers is provided with a feedback gear (121) engaged with the rotary rack wheel (Figs. 5 and 7; paragraph 0053); and
the rotary rack wheel and the steering gear are configured in gear structures engaged with each other (Fig. 5; paragraph 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of independent electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the independent electronic steering axle disclosed by Pfetsch to include: a rotary rack wheel (113a, Li) mounted onto each of the wheel frames (20a, Pfetsch), wherein a power output shaft of each of the steering motors (26, Pfetsch) is provided with a steering gear (141, Li) respectively engaged with the rotary rack wheel mounted on respective wheel frames via respective reducers (143, Li); and feedback assemblies of Li (120, Li) as described above, wherein the feedback assemblies of Li (120, Li) are respectively arranged at the two ends of the swing axle, and each of the feedback assemblies of Li (120, Li) is drivingly connected to the respective rotary rack wheel and electrically connected to the main controller (100, Pfetsch).
One skilled in the art would be motivated to have feedback assemblies drivingly connected to the rotary rack wheel to provide information to the main controller of the Pfetsch/Li device for at least the purpose of accurate steering responsiveness as taught by Li (paragraphs 0016, 0056), and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
However, the modified combination of the Pfetsch/Li device does not appear to explicitly disclose specific mounting arrangements of controllers. Zhao discloses [a controller (8) mounted to a steering axle] (complete assembly shown in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0036, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the motor controllers of Pfetsch such that they are respectively arranged at the two ends of the swing axle and further to mount the main controller such that the main controller is arranged on the swing axle because the results would have been predictable and would advantageously provide a Pfetsch/Li/Zhao assembly that is simpler in design by having respective controllers mounted to the swing axle.
PNG
media_image1.png
1236
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Fig. 2 of Pfetsch
Regarding claim 8, Pfetsch further discloses [a four-fulcrum counterbalance forklift (10), comprising the independent electronic steering axle according to claim 1] (Figs. 1 – 3; paragraph 0025).
Regarding claims 2 and 17 (similar limitations, different dependency), Pfetsch further discloses that [the swing axle is rotatably connected to the vehicle body through a connecting shaft and a connecting base (32) on a symmetrical axis] (Ann. Fig. 2; paragraph 0024; the symmetrical axis is understood as an axis extending longitudinally through the center of the connecting shaft and the connecting base, 32).
Regarding claims 6 and 9 (similar limitations, different dependency), the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li/Zhao already discloses all limitations of the claims, including encoders structured and functioning as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Regarding claims 7 and 13 (similar limitations, different dependency), the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li/Zhao already discloses all limitations of the claims, including potentiometers structured and functioning as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfetsch, Li, and Zhao, and further in view of CN 203111302 U to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claims 3 and 18 (similar limitations different dependency), Pfetsch as modified above includes most limitations including the reducer and its engagement with the steering gear as recited (see details in the 35 USC 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above), however, the modified combination of Pfetsch does not appear to further disclose a motor encoder built into the steering motor.
Wang teaches that it was old and well known in the art of independent electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include [a motor encoder (11) electrically connected to a motor controller (13) built into a steering motor (10)] (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0030 and 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of independent electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic steering axle system disclosed by the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li/Zhao to incorporate a motor encoder (11, Wang) built into each of the steering motors (26, Pfetsch), wherein the motor encoders (11, Wang) are electrically connected to respective motor controllers (102a and 102b, Pfetsch).
An ordinary artisan would be motivated to modify the Pfetsch/Li/Zhao device according to the teachings of Wang for at least the purpose of, according to Wang in paragraph 0024, achieving precise power steering, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results. Furthermore, one skilled in the art would appreciate at least one of the following added advantageous benefits that Wang discloses in paragraph 0020: easy installation and debugging, high reliability and safety, low cost, and a simple structure.
Regarding claims 4 and 19 (similar limitations different dependency), the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li/Zhao already discloses all limitations of the claims, including the rotary rack wheel and the steering gear configured in gear structures as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Regarding claims 10 and 11 (similar limitations, different dependency), the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li/Zhao already discloses all limitations of the claims, including encoders structured and functioning as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Regarding claims 14 and 15 (similar limitations, different dependency), the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li/Zhao already discloses all limitations of the claims, including potentiometers structured and functioning as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Claims 5, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfetsch, Li, Zhao, Wang, and further in view of Schuetzeneder (US 2019/0308860 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 20 (similar limitations different dependency), the modified combination above does not appear to further disclose sprocket structures and a chain.
Schuetzeneder teaches that it was old and well known in the art of independent electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for [a rotary rack wheel (36) and a steering gear (34) to be configured in sprocket structures and drivingly connected by a chain (37)] (Fig. 4; paragraphs 0078 – 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of independent electronic steering axles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Pfetsch/Li/Wang axle system to incorporate the rotary rack wheel (36), the steering gear (34), and the chain (37) because, as taught by Schuetzeneder, chains are robust and not sensitive to dirt (Schuetzeneder – paragraph 0016), and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li already discloses all limitations of the claim, including encoders structured and functioning as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified combination of Pfetsch/Li already discloses all limitations of the claim, including potentiometers structured and functioning as recited (see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of parent claim 1, above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Response regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant's argument on pp 13 – 15 of the Response that the combination of references must not destroy the functionality of the original art and that the combination must not change the principle of operation or require substantial reconstruction on pp 15 – 18 of the Response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument on pp 18 – 20 of the Response that the inventor identified a problem that others did not, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument on pp 19 – 20 of the Response that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an AGV unmanned forklift) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/Tyler Ferguson/
Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights