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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corleis (DE102016124360 A1) in view of Roat (DE112021002255 T5).
With respect to claim 1, Corleis discloses controlling a steering orbitrol (3) of the hydrostatic steering device (1) by a steering wheel (4) via a steering column (5); deflecting a steering cylinder (7) in accordance with a driver-side steering actuation of the steering wheel; detecting a steering actuation variable via a first sensor (42) on the steering column (5) which indicates a steering actuation exerted on the steering wheel ([0036] and [0037]); detecting a steering position variable via a second sensor which indicates a wheel steering angle set by the steering cylinder (7) at steerable wheels of the agricultural utility vehicle [0003], steering sensor on the steered wheel which is an actual value sensor which detects the angle of the steered wheel); actuating an electric drive unit (40) via a control unit (41) for generating an actuating torque acting on the steering column ([0022], [0029], and [0034]), the control unit receiving the steering actuation variable and the steering position variable; in a normal operating mode, as a function of the steering actuation variable and the steering position variable, the control unit is configured to actuate the electric drive unit such that an actuating torque is generated at the steering column and thus at the steering wheel (claim 2 and [0018]); and in an emergency operating mode, as a function of the steering actuation variable and the steering position variable, the control unit (41) is configured to control the electric drive unit such that an actuating torque is generated on the steering column and thus on the steering orbitrol (3) to support driver-side steering actuation ({0041] and [0042]; in emergency operation, the electric motor acts on the steering column and functions as power assistance). Corleis does not disclose that the actuating torque generated increases continuously with the wheel steering angle. Roat, however, disclose generating an actuating torque that increases continuously with the wheel steering angle until a mechanical stop is reached ([0017] and [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Corleis in view of the teachings of Roat to increase the torque continuously with the wheel steering angle in order to ensure consistent feedback, especially when the vehicle is driven on public roads.
With respect to claim 2, wherein the gradient of the actuating torque generated in normal operating mode is increased abruptly by the control unit when one of a maximum wheel steering angle is reached or in the event that the steering wheel angle changes without simultaneous change of the steering wheel angle ([0040] of Rout).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Corleis and Roat discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the actuating torque generated in normal operating mode is modified by the control unit in dependence on dynamic driving parameters. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the actuated torque in dependence on dynamic driving parameters in order to optimize vehicle stablility, energy efficiency, and driver control. Dynamic modifications also adapt the system to real-time conditions rather than relying on a static, one size fits all output.
With respect to claim 4, Corleis disclose an interface that can select an autonomous operation [0035] but do not specifically disclose using the interface to select the normal operating mode. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further modify the invention of Corleis to use the interface to also select the normal operating mode, since such a modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results, namely, that the operator can switch between operating modes as desired.
With respect to claim 5, Corleis disclose the claimed invention discussed above and also a dynamically adjustable torque that acts against the steering wheel but does not specifically disclose wherein the course of the actuating torque applied to the steering wheel depending on the wheel steering angle can be adapted via the operating terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to adapt the course of the actuating torque applied to the steering wheel depending on the wheel steering angle via the operating terminal in order to control the torque dynamically based on operator characteristics to customize the steering feel.
With respect to claims 7-11, the method discussed above meets the apparatus limitations.
Claims 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corleis (DE102016124360 A1) in view of Roat (DE112021002255 T5), as applied to claim 1 discussed above, and further in view of Selbach et al. (EP4134294 A1).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Corleis and Roat discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the emergency operating mode is automatically triggered by the control unit when one of a failure or faulty operation of the hydraulic supply to the hydrostatic steering device is detected. Selbach et al., however, disclose automatically triggering an emergency operating mode when one of a failure or faulty operation of the hydraulic supply to the hydrostatic steering device is detected [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further modify the invention of Corleis in view of the teachings of Selbech et al. to automatically trigger the emergency mode to ensure reliable steering even if there is a fault in the system.
With respect to claim 12, the method discussed above meets the apparatus limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights