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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on March 25, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on {January 05, 2026} and {March 14, 2026} were submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed March 25, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-15 and 19 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said claims 1, 3-15 and 19 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been withdrawn.
Further on, claims 1 and 3-15 are allowable over the prior art.
Still further, claim 19 is objected as allowable subject matter.
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed March 25, 2026, with respect to claims 17-18 and 20 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained below.
Applicant respectfully asserts that {It is further respectfully submitted that, because the Office has acknowledged that Fig. 4 of Raksincharoensak only "...shows the steering angle ratio of the front wheel actual steering angle and the steering wheel angle for the varied vehicle velocity computed in the front wheel active steering controller 9" (OA, pg. 8), it cannot be said that Fig. 4 of Raksincharoensak describes, teaches, or suggests the limitations of claims 3 and 4 as asserted in the Office Action. (OA, pgs. 9-10). More particularly, because the Office has not explained how or why one of skill in the art would recognize the elements of claims 3 and 4, which require left wheel and right wheel steering ratio curve functions, in a figure that only pertains to a front wheel, it is submitted that a prima facie case of anticipation has not been presented. For this additional reason, it is submitted that claims 3 and 4 are also allowable over Raksincharoensak} and {It is similarly submitted that Fig. 4 of Raksincharoensak cannot be said to describe, teach, or suggest the limitations of claim 7 as also asserted in the Office Action. (OA, pg. 11). More particularly, because the Office has not explained how or why one of skill in the art would recognize the elements of claim 7, which require a traveling speed between the low-speed driving threshold and the high-speed driving threshold and the using of both the low-speed steering ratio and the high-speed steering ratio, in a figure that shows a single, non-linear curve, it is submitted that a prima facie case of anticipation has not been presented. For this additional reason, it is submitted that claim 7 is also allowable over Raksincharoensak}.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the above arguments are persuasive regarding claims 1, 3-15 and 19. Accordingly, the Examiner indicated claims 1 and 3-15 as allowable over the prior art and claim 19 as objected as allowable subject matter. However, 17-18 and 20 which are broader in scope still reads on Raksincharoensak as explained below in section 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are allowable over the prior art.
Claim 19 is objected as allowable subject matter.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-15 are allowable over the prior art.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Raksincharoensak – US 7,668,635 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Raksincharoensak discloses:
A vehicle-type driving device (Steering Device for vehicle 100: Fig. 1), comprising:
a traveling assembly comprising a plurality of traveling wheels (front wheel tires 13 and 14: Fig. 1);
a steering wheel (steering wheel 2: Fig. 1) configured to control the vehicle-type driving device to steer;
a traveling motor (front wheel steering motor 4: Fig. 1) for driving the vehicle-type driving device to steer at a target angular velocity, wherein a ratio of the target angular velocity to a change in a steering angle of the steering wheel is defined as a steering ratio; and
a control device (front wheel active steering controller 9: Fig. 1) configured to:
when a traveling speed of the vehicle-type driving device is within a preset range, set the steering ratio according to a plurality of steering ratio curve functions (FIG. 4 shows the steering angle ratio of the front wheel actual steering angle and the steering wheel angle for the varied vehicle velocity computed in the front wheel active steering controller 9. Further on, the steering ratio function is a non-linear curve function);
wherein a variable of at least one of the plurality of steering ratio curve functions comprises the traveling speed of the vehicle-type driving device (Steering Device for vehicle 100: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Raksincharoensak disclose the vehicle-type driving device according to claim 17, and further on Raksincharoensak also discloses:
wherein the plurality of steering ratio curve functions comprise a low-speed steering ratio curve function and a high-speed steering ratio curve function, the preset range comprises a low-speed driving threshold and a high-speed driving threshold, when the traveling speed is less than the low-speed driving threshold, a low-speed steering ratio is set according to the low-speed steering ratio curve function, and, when the traveling speed is greater than the high-speed driving threshold, a high-speed steering ratio of a traveling wheel of the plurality of traveling wheels is set according to the high-speed steering ratio curve function (Please see Fig.4 above showing a non-linear curve function for the steering ratio in function of the vehicle velocity).
Regarding claim 20, Raksincharoensak disclose the vehicle-type driving device according to claim 17, and further on Raksincharoensak also discloses:
wherein when the traveling speed of the vehicle-type driving device is within the preset range, the variable of a steering ratio curve function of the plurality of steering ratio curve functions comprises a steering ratio coefficient of the steering wheel depending on the traveling speed of the vehicle-type driving device, and a value of the steering ratio coefficient of the steering wheel is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 1 (Please see Fig. 4 above showing a non-linear curve function for the steering ratio in function of the vehicle velocity).
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 Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights