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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the front and rear axles” in line 3 and again in line 5, it is unclear which axles this is referring to, the passively steered axles or the at least one rear axle or both.
Claim 1 recites “two actively steered axles” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is “the front axle” in line 9, and the “at least one rear axle” in line 3-4 or different axles. Likewise, for the “two actively steered axles” in claim 6.
Claim 1 recites “the steering pole place (pusher axle)” is unclear what is being claimed as the pusher axle. This issue is also carried to “the pusher axle” in claims 7 and 8.
Claim 4 recites “at least one steerable rear axle” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is the “at least one rear axle” in claim 1 line 3 or another one.
Claim 7 recites “the at least one front axle” it is unclear if this is “the at least one passively steered axles” or “a front axle” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the at least one pusher axle (trailing axle)” there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 1 was unclear as to what the one pusher axle is and what is being claimed. The “(trailing axle)” recited in claim 7 is unclear what axle is being claimed.
Claim 8 recites “two front axles” and “two steerable rear axles” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the at least one front axle” it is unclear if this is “the at least one passively steered axles” and “a front axle” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the at least one pusher axle” in line 3 and line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “at least two rear axles that are steerable” it is unclear if these are the same or different axles as recited in claim 1 line 3-4.
Claim 19 recites “the at least one trialing axle” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the at least one axles is the trailing axle due to the indefinite issues in claim 7.
Claim 19 recites “the at least one front axle” in line 2-3, it is unclear if this is “the at least one passively steered axles” or the “ front axle” as recited in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amended claims filed 01/02/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C 103 rejections of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter. The prior art of record, including Becker, Koenigstein, Dillard, and Pohl, fails to teach or fairly suggest the specifically claimed arrangement of the rear axles as recited in the amended claim 1. In particular the prior art does not teach or suggest at least one passively-steered rear axle arranged between a front axle and the steering pole plane, wherein a passively-steered rear axle is positioned between two actively steered axles and in front of the steering pole plane. Becker teaches a multi steering system and steering pole geometry, but does not teach a passively-steered rear axle. Koenigstein teaches passive steering by caster for certain axles in a fault condition, but does not teach or suggest the claimed positional relationship of the passively-steered axle relative to the front axle, the actively steered axles, and the steering pole plane. Dillard and Pohl likewise don’t teach or suggest this.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights