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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action mailed 01/13/2026, Applicant amended Claim 9. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment(s). The claim objections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see pages 7-8, “A. Determine an Angular Speed”, filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument “Nystuen's system is agnostic to the vehicle's dynamic velocity vector, only considering correcting a positional error. In Nystuen, any instance in which the vehicle's direction of travel might be maintained during correction is purely coincidental and an uncontrolled byproduct of its position-based correction, not an actively achieved and controlled result.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP2145(I) states “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). In this instance, the presented argument/opinion regarding the manner in which the prior art operates is not the kind of factual evidence necessary to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Applicants argument “Applicant discloses deliberately calculating a specific angular speed to ensure that the vehicle continues along its current trajectory without deviation as it straightens, thereby emulating the intuitive behavior of a conventional vehicle. The control of the articulation angle is deliberately performed for the purpose of achieving the result of maintaining the vehicle's overall direction of travel.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “calculating a specific angular speed to ensure that the vehicle continues along its current trajectory without deviation as it straightens, thereby emulating the intuitive behavior of a conventional vehicle”) 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). In contrast, Claim 1 merely states: “determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle towards 0 based on the articulation angle and a magnitude of the velocity such that a direction of the velocity is maintained”. As previously indicated, Nystuen discloses a steering control system for an articulated vehicle (Fig. 1, 10) configured to adapt an articulation angle such that a vehicle maintains either a forward or backward linear vehicle direction of travel (Fig. 1, item 30; “When aligned for generally linear vehicle travel as seen in FIGS. 1 and 2A, the vehicle 10 moves longitudinally in the forward or rearward directions indicated by arrow 30”; col. 5 lines 11-14)
Applicant's arguments see pages 8-9, “B. Determine a Steer-to-Center Torque”, filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument “The hydraulic actuators of Nystuen produce a physical torque, but the basis for that action is merely positional error (being outside the home range). Applicant discloses determining a steer-to- center torque based on a specific, motion-maintaining angular speed that Nystuen never calculates. Accordingly, Nystuen fails to disclose or suggest "determine a steer-to-center torque for controlling the articulation angle towards 0 based on the angular speed," as recited in independent claim 1”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously indicated Nystuen discloses ““For example, when (a) the frame portions are articulated two degrees to the right (and thus one and one-half degrees away from being within the range of articulation positions defining the home range, (b) the wagon-wheel axle pivot rate is from zero to approximately twelve degrees per second; and (c) the wagon-wheel axle is being pivoted to the left: the controller 80 will cause the diverting valve 72 to pulse pressurized hydraulic fluid to the articulation actuators 42 and 44 through conduit 76 (see FIGS. 1 and 5) to an extent sufficient to place the frame portions 12 and 14 within the home range. Of course, since the axle pivot rate and other dynamic parameters are constantly in a state of flux, further correction may be required.” Col. 13 lines 6-20. The prior art does not expressly recite “torque”; however the disclosed system is configured to control the pressurized fluid in actuators 42/44 such that a torque is generated about the pivot point 16, sufficient to control the articulation angle at predetermined angular speed (rate) toward zero (e.g. desired angular home range) in order that the vehicle is configured for straight-ahead vehicle travel with the longitudinal axes of the first and second frame portions being colinearly aligned.).”.
Applicant's arguments see pages 9-10, “C. Obtain a Velocity and Determine an Angular Speed”, filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “As noted above, there are fundamental differences between Nystuen and Applicant's disclosure. Any combination of Nystuen with Vigholm would be a system wherein Nystuen's return to its "home range" occurs at a rate that varies with vehicle speed, which is still a purely positional control strategy. Such a combination would lack the active determination of an angular speed for maintaining the vehicle's dynamic direction of velocity. Any such combination would teach away from Applicant's disclosure. By providing a modified solution based on Nystuen's existing positional control, the combination would reinforce the idea of improving the rate of positional correction, thereby directing a skilled person away from abandoning that approach to develop the entirely different control strategy of Applicant's disclosure. As such, the references, even when combined, provide no teaching or motivation that would lead a skilled person to recognize the problem of maintaining the velocity vector and to subsequently develop the specific calculations required to solve it.”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “Any such combination would teach away from Applicant's disclosure”; a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed .... ", In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Simply that there are differences between two references is insufficient to establish that such references “teach away” from any combination thereof. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13. 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this instance, as previously indicated; Nystuen discloses all the elements of Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the computer system is further configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity.
Vigholm discloses a computer system (Fig. 2, control unit 15) configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity (“The control unit 15 is adapted to define the steering angle speed as a function of the sensed vehicle speed.”; Col. 5 lines 1-2) in order that “By taking the speed of the vehicle into consideration, opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe. More specifically, it is possible to have different characteristics for different handling operations” (Col. 2 line 14-17). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the articulated vehicle computer control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Vigholm to include wherein disclose the computer system is further configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity in order that “By taking the speed of the vehicle into consideration, opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe. More specifically, it is possible to have different characteristics for different handling operations” (Col. 2 line 14-17). In other words, modifying the articulated vehicle computer control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Vigholm to include wherein disclose the computer system is further configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity ensures opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe for vehicle operators and provide further vehicle control possibilities comprising different characteristics for different handling operations.
Regarding Applicants Argument “Accordingly, none of the references, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest "obtain an articulation angle of an articulated vehicle and a velocity of the articulated vehicle" and "responsive to the articulation angle deviating from 00: determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle towards 0° based on the articulation angle and a magnitude of the velocity such that a direction of the velocity is maintained," as recited in independent claim 1.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons presented above and the reasons presented in the rejections of record.
Applicant's arguments see pages 9-10, “Rejection of Claims 5, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. @ 103(a) - Nystuen in view of Vigholm and Kuipers”, filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument “The basis for the feedback in Kuiper is fundamentally different from that disclosed by Applicant. Applicant discloses haptic feedback based on the unique "steer-to-center torque." This "steer-to-center torque" is not a simple positional error, but rather a specific value derived from a calculated angular speed, the purpose of which is to maintain the vehicle's direction of velocity.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding Applicant’s Argument A person of ordinary skill attempting to combine these references would have no motivation, or even a basis, to generate haptic feedback from the claimed "steer-to-center torque" because the underlying Nystuen and Vigholm combination never calculates this parameter. A skilled person would instead be motivated to apply Kuipers' teaching to Nystuen's system to provide feedback on its existing positional error (i.e., the deviation from the "home range"), which would lead away from Applicant's disclosure. Accordingly, none of the references, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest "wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque," as recited in dependent claim 5.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as previously indicated, Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nystuen and Vigholm teach all the elements of Claim 4 as indicated above. Nystuen does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque (i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target angular home range and actual articulated angle)
Kuipers discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque ((i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target articulated angle and actual articulated angle; Fig. 2-3, drive-by-wire steering control system for articulated vehicle configured to provide optimized force feedback to SIU based on the error between actual articulation angle of machine and desired articulation angle of machine, Steps 320-330 see Col. 8 line 51 to col. 9 line 16-19) in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the articulated vehicle steering control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers to include wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nystuen et al. (U.S. 4802545) in view of Vigholm (U.S. Pat. 7407034).
Nystuen discloses a method and device for controlling steering of an articulated vehicle (Fig. 1). Specifically, Nystuen discloses methods and devices configured to automatically control the articulated angle of the vehicle within a “"home range"; “there is a central small range (a "home range") in which the articulation actuators are not activated. This "home range" extends one-half degree on either side of the line representing the colinearly aligned relationship of the frame portions as seen in FIG. 2A.” (Col. 6 line 64+); in order “to ensure that the frame portions will always be ultimately placed within the home range when the vehicle is returned to alignment for generally linear travel.” (Col. 11 line 47+) and “When the frame portions 12 and 14 are not placed in the home range position, correction is thus required and is initiated by means of the microprocess controller 80.” (Col. 12 line 1-5). Vigholm discloses a Method and device for controlling an articulated vehicle's operation (Fig. 1) by sensing a vehicle driver's operation of a control element of the vehicle, and the steering angle of the vehicle being regulated depending on the operation of the control element. The speed of the vehicle is sensed, a procedure for changing the steering angle of the vehicle is defined based on the sensed operation of the control element and the sensed vehicle speed, and the steering angle of the vehicle is regulated according to the defined procedure. (Abstract). And “According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the speed of change of the steering angle is defined as a function of the sensed vehicle speed. The signal from the lever is therefore amplified (or attenuated) to a different extent depending on the vehicle speed. According to one variation (development) of the invention, the speed of change of the steering angle is defined by an inverse relationship relative to the sensed vehicle speed. In other words, the change of steering angle for a specific lever deflection takes place more rapidly at lower vehicle speeds than at higher vehicle speeds.” (Col. 1 line 33-43).
a. regarding Claim 1, Nystuen discloses: A computer system (Fig. 10 and 6; a microprocessor controller 80) comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain an articulation angle (Fig. 10, “ A variable impedance potentiometer 94 is operably mounted between the vehicle frame portions 12 and 14 to detect the dynamic signals of articulation of the two frame portions. The potentiometer 94 detects and provides electrical signals based upon the direction of articulation of the frame portions (to the right or left from colinearly aligned), the extent of such articulation (i.e., zero to forty degrees) and the rate of such articulation (i.e., the degree of articulation per second). The electrical signals provided by potentiometer 94 are conveyed to the controller 80”; Col. 9 lines 3-12) of an articulated of an articulated vehicle (Fig. 1, item 10) , wherein the articulation angle is controlled by a steering input unit (SIU) (Fig. 10, item 64) of a steering system of the articulated vehicle;
and responsive to the articulation angle deviating from 0 (Fig. 4, “ Potentiometer 94 continually provides the controller 80 with a signal dependent upon the degree of articulation of the frame portions 12 and 14. When this signal indicates that the frame portion 12 and 14 are outside of their home range, and the diverting valve 72 is in its axle-activated position, the controller 80 reacts to place the frame portions 12 and 14 in the home range at an appropriate time.”);
determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle based on the articulation angle (“In achieving the articulation positional corrections described above, the rate of pivoting of the wagon-wheel axle 22 is considered by the controller 80 because valve response time must be considered and accounted for. If the rate of relative frame portion movement is too fast for a particular degree of articulation position error (extent of articulation outside of the home range), it is possible that an effort to achieve correction would cause the frame portions 12 and 14 to articulate to a position in error on the other side of the home range, rather than falling within the home range.”; Col. 12 lines 51-62; See Fig. 7) such that a direction of the vehicle (Fig. 1, item 30; “When aligned for generally linear vehicle travel as seen in FIGS. 1 and 2A, the vehicle 10 moves longitudinally in the forward or rearward directions indicated by arrow 30”; col. 5 lines 11-14) is maintained;
determine a steer-to-center torque for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on the angular speed; and provide the steer-to-center torque to the steering system for control of the articulation angle. (“The actual correction in the hydraulic system described above is accomplished by one or more pulsed signals from the controller 80 to the pilot valve 78. There signals cause the valve spool of the diverting valve 72 to rapidly pulse between its default position and its axle-activated position, thereby providing a pulsed activation of the articulation actuators 42 and 44 in the manner necessary to align the frame portions 12 and 14 in the home range.” Col. 12 lines 43-52 and “For example, when (a) the frame portions are articulated two degrees to the right (and thus one and one-half degrees away from being within the range of articulation positions defining the home range, (b) the wagon-wheel axle pivot rate is from zero to approximately twelve degrees per second; and (c) the wagon-wheel axle is being pivoted to the left: the controller 80 will cause the diverting valve 72 to pulse pressurized hydraulic fluid to the articulation actuators 42 and 44 through conduit 76 (see FIGS. 1 and 5) to an extent sufficient to place the frame portions 12 and 14 within the home range. Of course, since the axle pivot rate and other dynamic parameters are constantly in a state of flux, further correction may be required.” Col. 13 lines 6-20. The prior art does not expressly recite “torque”; however the disclosed system is configured to control the pressurized fluid in actuators 42/44 such that a torque is generated about the pivot point 16, sufficient to control the articulation angle at predetermined angular speed (rate) toward zero (e.g. desired angular home range) in order that the vehicle is configured for straight-ahead vehicle travel with the longitudinal axes of the first and second frame portions being colinearly aligned.).
Nystuen discloses all the elements of Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the computer system is further configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity.
Vigholm discloses a computer system (Fig. 2, control unit 15) configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity (“The control unit 15 is adapted to define the steering angle speed as a function of the sensed vehicle speed.”; Col. 5 lines 1-2) in order that “By taking the speed of the vehicle into consideration, opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe. More specifically, it is possible to have different characteristics for different handling operations” (Col. 2 line 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the articulated vehicle computer control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Vigholm to include wherein disclose the computer system is further configured to obtain a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity in order that “By taking the speed of the vehicle into consideration, opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe. More specifically, it is possible to have different characteristics for different handling operations” (Col. 2 line 14-17).
Regarding Claim 13, Nystuen discloses: A computer implemented method (Fig. 10 and 6; a microprocessor controller 80; executing control of the articulation angle of the vehicle) comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, an articulation angle of an articulated vehicle (Fig. 10, “ A variable impedance potentiometer 94 is operably mounted between the vehicle frame portions 12 and 14 to detect the dynamic signals of articulation of the two frame portions. The potentiometer 94 detects and provides electrical signals based upon the direction of articulation of the frame portions (to the right or left from colinearly aligned), the extent of such articulation (i.e., zero to forty degrees) and the rate of such articulation (i.e., the degree of articulation per second). The electrical signals provided by potentiometer 94 are conveyed to the controller 80”; Col. 9 lines 3-12), wherein the articulation angle is controlled by a steering input unit (SIU) (Fig. 10, item 64) of a steering system of the articulated vehicle;
and responsive to the articulation angle deviating from 0 (Fig. 4, “ Potentiometer 94 continually provides the controller 80 with a signal dependent upon the degree of articulation of the frame portions 12 and 14. When this signal indicates that the frame portion 12 and 14 are outside of their homne range, and the diverting valve 72 is in its axle-activated position, the controller 80 reacts to place the frame portions 12 and 14 in the home range at an appropriate time.”);
determining, by processing circuitry of the computer system, an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle towards 0 based on the articulation angle (“In achieving the articulation positional corrections described above, the rate of pivoting of the wagon-wheel axle 22 is considered by the controller 80 because valve response time must be considered and accounted for. If the rate of relative frame portion movement is too fast for a particular degree of articulation position error (extent of articulation outside of the home range), it is possible that an effort to achieve correction would cause the frame portions 12 and 14 to articulate to a position in error on the other side of the home range, rather than falling within the home range.”; Col. 12 lines 51-62; See Fig. 7) such that a direction of the vehicle (Fig. 1, item 30; “When aligned for generally linear vehicle travel as seen in FIGS. 1 and 2A, the vehicle 10 moves longitudinally in the forward or rearward directions indicated by arrow 30”; col. 5 lines 11-14) is maintained;
determining, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a steer-to-center torque for controlling the articulation angle towards 0; based on the angular speed; and providing, by processing circuitry of the computer system, the steer-to-center torque to the steering system for control of the articulation angle. (“The actual correction in the hydraulic system described above is accomplished by one or more pulsed signals from the controller 80 to the pilot valve 78. There signals cause the valve spool of the diverting valve 72 to rapidly pulse between its default position and its axle-activated position, thereby providing a pulsed activation of the articulation actuators 42 and 44 in the manner necessary to align the frame portions 12 and 14 in the home range.” Col. 12 lines 43-52 and “For example, when (a) the frame portions are articulated two degrees to the right (and thus one and one-half degrees away from being within the range of articulation positions defining the home range, (b) the wagon-wheel axle pivot rate is from zero to approximately twelve degrees per second; and (c) the wagon-wheel axle is being pivoted to the left: the controller 80 will cause the diverting valve 72 to pulse pressurized hydraulic fluid to the articulation actuators 42 and 44 through conduit 76 (see FIGS. 1 and 5) to an extent sufficient to place the frame portions 12 and 14 within the home range. Of course, since the axle pivot rate and other dynamic parameters are constantly in a state of flux, further correction may be required.” Col. 13 lines 6-20. The prior art does not expressly recite “torque”; however the disclosed system is configured to control the pressurized fluid in actuators 42/44 such that a torque is generated about the pivot point 16, sufficient to control the articulation angle at predetermined angular speed (rate) toward zero (home range) in order that the vehicle is configured for straight-ahead vehicle travel with the longitudinal axes of the first and second frame portions being colinearly aligned.).
Nystuen discloses all the elements of Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the computer system is further configured to configured to implement a method for obtaining a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determining an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity.
Vigholm discloses a computer system (Fig. 2, control unit 15) configured to implement a method for obtaining a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity (“The control unit 15 is adapted to define the steering angle speed as a function of the sensed vehicle speed.”; Col. 5 lines 1-2) in order that “By taking the speed of the vehicle into consideration, opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe. More specifically, it is possible to have different characteristics for different handling operations” (Col. 2 line 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the articulated vehicle computer control system for implementing a method of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Vigholm to include wherein disclose the computer system is further configured to implement a method for obtaining a velocity of the articulated vehicle; and determine an angular speed for controlling the articulation angle toward 0 based on a magnitude of the velocity in order that “By taking the speed of the vehicle into consideration, opportunities are afforded for making lever steering comfortable and safe. More specifically, it is possible to have different characteristics for different handling operations” (Col. 2 line 14-17).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the SIU is a SIU of the articulated vehicle (Fig. 10, item 64 steering wheel position determined by potentiometer 110 and vehicle articulation angle controlled by controller 80)
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the steering system is a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system (Fig. 10, item 64 steering wheel position determined by potentiometer 110 and vehicle articulation angle controlled by controller 80)
Regarding Claim 4, Nystuen further discloses: further comprising the steering system (Fig. 10)
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a hydraulic steering actuator (Fig. 10; items 42 and 44) of the steering system based on the steer-to-center torque and further comprising: controlling, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a hydraulic steering actuator (Fig. 10; items 42 and 44) of the steering system based on the steer-to-center torque
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain a wanted articulation angle of the articulated vehicle, from the SIU; and determine a wanted articulation torque for controlling the articulation angle towards the wanted articulation angle (Fig. 10; “Electrical signals from the potentiometer 110 are conveyed via suitable conduit means 112 to the controller 80. Thus, electrical signals dependent upon the desired direction, rate and extent of turning of the vehicle are all detected (by monitoring the turning activities of the vehicle's steering wheel electrically) and analyzed electronically by the controller 80 to assist in controlling the hydraulic steering actuators” Col. 19 line 34+; and “By this means, the controller 80 thus ultimately controls the activation of the various hydraulic actuators 42, 44 and 46 for steering of the vehicle 10.”; Col. 9 line 25-38) and further comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a wanted articulation angle of the articulated vehicle, from the SIU; and determining, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a wanted articulation torque for controlling the articulation angle towards the wanted articulation angle (Fig. 10; “Electrical signals from the potentiometer 110 are conveyed via suitable conduit means 112 to the controller 80. Thus, electrical signals dependent upon the desired direction, rate and extent of turning of the vehicle are all detected (by monitoring the turning activities of the vehicle's steering wheel electrically) and analyzed electronically by the controller 80 to assist in controlling the hydraulic steering actuators” Col. 19 line 34+; and “By this means, the controller 80 thus ultimately controls the activation of the various hydraulic actuators 42, 44 and 46 for steering of the vehicle 10.”; Col. 9 line 25-38)
Regarding Claim 8, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control the articulation angle by applying the wanted articulation torque and the steer-to-center torque to a steering actuator of the steering system (Fig. 6 and 10, the control unit 80 is configured to control the vehicle articulation angle toward a desired angle during operator based steering control (via steering wheel 64) and when control of the articulation angle back to zero (home range) is necessary during return to linear vehicle travel)
Regarding Claim 10, Nystuen further discloses: An articulated vehicle comprising a steering system and the computer system of claim 1. (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 11, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the articulated vehicle is a heavy-duty vehicle. (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 12, Nystuen further discloses: wherein the steering system is a hydraulic steering system and the articulated vehicle is a SbW vehicle (Fig. 10, hydraulic actuators 42/44 which are adjusted based on control signals from controller 80)
Regarding Claim 19, Nystuen further discloses: A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processing circuitry, the method of claim 13. (Fig. 6; “FIG. 6 shows an electrical block diagram of one embodiment of microprocessor controller 80. The electronic controller 80 includes filter 200, voltage regulator 202, low voltage reset circuit 204, microcomputer 206, watchdog timer 208, E.sup.2 PROM memory 210, analog-to-digital (A/D) converter 212, calibration switch 214, calibrate circuit 216, calibration potentiometer 218, buffer and drive circuits 220 and 222, and test light 224.” And “Microcomputer 206 controls the operation of controller 80 based upon inputs from A/D converter 212 and calibrate circuit 216, and upon stored calibration data from E.sup.2 PROM 210.” And “The controller 80 is programmed…”; in other words the prior art discloses a computer executable program that when executed by the microprocessor based control unit 80, performs the disclosed control method)
Regarding Claim 20, Nystuen further discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13. (Fig. 6; “FIG. 6 shows an electrical block diagram of one embodiment of microprocessor controller 80. The electronic controller 80 includes filter 200, voltage regulator 202, low voltage reset circuit 204, microcomputer 206, watchdog timer 208, EPROM memory 210, analog-to-digital (A/D) converter 212, calibration switch 214, calibrate circuit 216, calibration potentiometer 218, buffer and drive circuits 220 and 222, and test light 224.” And “Microcomputer 206 controls the operation of controller 80 based upon inputs from A/D converter 212 and calibrate circuit 216, and upon stored calibration data from E.sup.2 PROM 210.” And “The controller 80 is programmed…”; in other words the prior art discloses a computer executable program that when executed by the microprocessor based control unit 80, performs the disclosed control method).
Claim(s) 5, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nystuen et al. (U.S. 4802545) in view of Vigholm (U.S. Pat. 7407034) in further view of Kuipers et al. (U.S. Pat. 9050999).
Kuipers discloses “A steering system and method for providing a force feedback to an operator input device are disclosed….The method may compare the actual steering mechanism position to the desired steering mechanism position and to a previous desired steering mechanism position. The method may generate a command that selectively activates force feedback to the operator input device based on the comparison.” (Abstract) and “Machines such as, for example, cars, trucks, wheel loaders, backhoes, and tractors, include motion-control systems that have one or more moveable input devices that regulate the motion of one or more moveable components, such as ground wheels of a machine. Some such motion-control systems include an operator interface associated with the moveable input device, such as a joystick, steering wheel, or a pedal, that an operator uses to provide input to the motion-control system…. Other motion control systems use means other than a mechanical connection to transmit input from the operator input device to the moveable components of the motion-control system, such as electrical signals (steer-by-wire type steering system). Some of these steer-by-wire steering systems provide force feedback to the operator manipulating the operator input device by, for example, calculating an error between the position of the operator input device and the position of the moveable components and applying a force feedback.” (Col. 1 lines 12-34).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nystuen and Vigholm teach all the elements of Claim 4 as indicated above. Nystuen does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque (i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target angular home range and actual articulated angle)
Kuipers discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque ((i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target articulated angle and actual articulated angle; Fig. 2-3, drive-by-wire steering control system for articulated vehicle configured to provide optimized force feedback to SIU based on the error between actual articulation angle of machine and desired articulation angle of machine, Steps 320-330 see Col. 8 line 51 to col. 9 line 16-19) in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the articulated vehicle steering control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers to include wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nystuen and Vigholm teach all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Nystuen further discloses: further comprising the steering system (Fig. 10), wherein the SIU is a SIU of the articulated vehicle (Fig. 10, item 64 steering wheel position determined by potentiometer 110 and vehicle articulation angle controlled by controller 80), the steering system is a SbW steering system (Fig. 10), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a hydraulic steering actuator (Fig. 10; items 42 and 44) of the steering system based on the steer-to-center torque; obtain a wanted articulation angle of the articulated vehicle, from the SIU; and determine a wanted articulation torque for controlling the articulation angle towards the wanted articulation angle(Fig. 10; “Electrical signals from the potentiometer 110 are conveyed via suitable conduit means 112 to the controller 80. Thus, electrical signals dependent upon the desired direction, rate and extent of turning of the vehicle are all detected (by monitoring the turning activities of the vehicle's steering wheel electrically) and analyzed electronically by the controller 80 to assist in controlling the hydraulic steering actuators” Col. 19 line 34+; and “By this means, the controller 80 thus ultimately controls the activation of the various hydraulic actuators 42, 44 and 46 for steering of the vehicle 10.”; Col. 9 line 25-38); and control the articulation angle by applying the wanted articulation torque and the steer-to-center torque to a steering actuator of the steering system (Fig. 6 and 10, the control unit 80 is configured to control the vehicle articulation angle toward a desired angle during operator based steering control (via steering wheel 64) and when control of the articulation angle back to zero (home range) is necessary during return to linear vehicle travel)
Nystuen does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque (i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target angular home range and actual articulated angle)
Kuipers discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque ((i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target articulated angle and actual articulated angle; Fig. 2-3, drive-by-wire steering control system for articulated vehicle configured to provide optimized force feedback to SIU based on the error between actual articulation angle of machine and desired articulation angle of machine, Steps 320-330 see Col. 8 line 51 to col. 9 line 16-19) in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the articulated vehicle steering control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers to include wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Nystuen and Vigholm teach all the elements of Claim 4 as indicated above. Nystuen does not explicitly teach: further comprising: controlling, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque (i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target angular home range and actual articulated angle)
Kuipers discloses further comprising: controlling, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque ((i.e. turning force resulting from a difference between target articulated angle and actual articulated angle; Fig. 2-3, drive-by-wire steering control system for articulated vehicle configured to provide optimized force feedback to SIU based on the error between actual articulation angle of machine and desired articulation angle of machine, Steps 320-330 see Col. 8 line 51 to col. 9 line 16-19) in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the method implemented by the articulated vehicle steering control system of Nystuen to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers to include further comprising: controlling, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a haptic feedback of the SIU based on the steer-to-center torque in order to “provide the operator using operator input device 20 with tactile feedback regarding road conditions of a road, on which machine 10 is operating, despite the lack of a mechanical connection between steering mechanism 18 and operator input device 20.” (Col. 7 line 57-61)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharma et al. (U.S. 20150259883A1) discloses “When engaged, an articulation controller automatically adjusts an angle of articulation between a front frame and a rear frame of a motor grader based on a steering angle of the front wheels. If a groundspeed of the motor grader exceeds a threshold groundspeed, the articulation controller enters a mode that only allows decreasing the angle of articulation of the motor grader. When the angle of articulation reaches zero, the articulation controller disengages until the groundspeed is reduced below the threshold groundspeed.” (Abstract) and “The electronic controller may further include a processor coupled to the groundspeed sensor input, the steering angle sensor input, the output, and the memory, that is configured to execute stored executable instructions that cause the electronic controller, responsive to data from the steering sensor, to cause the control mechanism via the output to increase and decrease an angle of articulation when the groundspeed is less than a maximum groundspeed. The executable instructions may also cause the electronic controller operate in a return-to-zero mode that only decreases the angle of articulation using the output when the groundspeed is greater than the maximum groundspeed.” (¶0007)
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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 BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 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 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights