DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/05/2024 and 06/06/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 claims, “a steering angle sensor for detecting a target steering angle” and “a travel speed sensor for detecting a target travel speed”. The specification does not adequately describe a sensor capable of measuring or detecting a targeted angle or targeted speed. Accordingly, a person seeking to make and/or use the invention as claimed in claim 11 would not be enabled to make and/or use “a steering angle sensor for detecting a target steering angle” or “a travel speed sensor (S4) for detecting a target travel speed”.
Claims 7-8 and 11 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.
In claims 7 and 8, it is unclear if the limitations follow the phrase, “in particular” are required claim features or preferred embodiments of the invention.
Claim 11 claims, “a steering angle sensor for detecting a target steering angle” and “a travel speed sensor for detecting a target travel speed”. It is unclear how a property target could be measured or detected by a sensor since sensors measure and detect physical properties rather than desired or targeted properties. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 11 is interpreted such that a target steering angle and a travel speed angle is calculated but not detected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anliker (US 20120000723 A1) in view of Hudson (US 20210061283 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Anliker discloses a method for steering control of an articulated construction machine comprising: a front carriage (2, Fig. 8) with a first travel unit (15a); a rear carriage (3) with a second travel unit (15b); an articulated pendulum joint device (14) connecting the front carriage to the rear carriage with an articulated joint steering axis and a pendulum joint oscillating axis, the articulated pendulum joint device having a steering drive (see “hydraulic piston-cylinder unit 14”, paragraph [0047]) for driving a steering movement about the articulated joint axis (see “…by means of which a specific angle of rotation of the two connecting plates 4, 6 relative to each other can be set”, paragraph [0047]); a crab steering joint device (7/13) for translational adjustment of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage, the crab steering joint device having an adjustment drive (13) for driving a translational adjustment movement (see “adjusted by a shortening or a lengthening of the hydraulic piston-cylinder-unit 13”, paragraph [0052]) of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage; wherein a steering operation comprises the steps of:
a). adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage about the articulated joint axis (see Figs. 11a and 11b and paragraph [0047]) and
b). adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the carriage via the crab steering joint device (see Figs. 9a and 9b and paragraph [0052]).
Anliker is silent in teaching a steering control unit, the pendulum joint device steering drive being controlled by the steering control unit, the adjustment drive being controlled by the steering control unit, and the steering operation being controlled by the steering control unit.
Hudson teaches a method for steering control of an articulated construction machine by means of a steering control unit (“controller”; paragraph [0008]), the construction machine comprising an articulated joint steering axis (see Fig. 3 and “articulated”, paragraph [0040]) with a steering drive controlled by the steering control unit (see “operatively coupled with the front axle steering system”, paragraph [0008]); and a crab steering joint device (see “crab steering control”, paragraph [0042]) having an adjustment drive controlled by the steering control unit (see “operatively coupled with…the rear axle steering system”); wherein a steering operation controlled by the steering control unit comprises the steps of:
a). adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage about the articulated joint axis (see Figs. 11a and 11b and paragraph [0047]) and
b). adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the carriage via the crab steering joint device (see Figs. 9a and 9b and paragraph [0052]).
Hudson further teaches that such a controller can provide an electronic steering mode in which lateral accelerations are compensated for with a crab steering correction angle (paragraph [0008]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anliker in view of Hudson to have a steering control unit to provide an electronic steering control system capable of compensating for lateral accelerations.
With respect to claim 2, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein steps a) and b) are performed at least partially in parallel to one another during a steering operation (Anliker; see “the "crab steering" can also be set during cornering”, paragraph [0054]).
With respect to claim 5, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the extent of the adjustment performed in step b) depends on a position of a center of gravity of the front carriage and/or the rear carriage.
Regarding claim 5, Hudson teaches detecting a current lateral inclination (“roll angle”, paragraph [004]) of the construction machine and adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering joint device (“adjusting the crab steering correction angle”, paragraph [0014]) depending on the current lateral inclination (“based on the vehicle roll angle”, paragraph [0014]). Since a non-zero roll angle would necessarily result in a shift in center of gravity, Hudson is also considered to teach that an extent of the adjustment performed in step b) depends on a center of gravity of the front carriage and/or the rear carriage.
With respect to claim 7, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching a current lateral inclination of the construction machine, in particular of the front carriage and/or of the rear carriage, is detected, and in that step b), in particular the extent of the adjustment of the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering joint device, is performed in addition to step a) depending on the current lateral inclination.
Hudson further teaches detecting a current lateral inclination (“roll angle”, paragraph [0014]) of the construction machine and adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering joint device (“adjusting the crab steering correction angle”, paragraph [0014]) depending on the current lateral inclination (“based on the vehicle roll angle”, paragraph [0014]). Regarding the limitation, “in addition to step a)”, Anliker in view of Hudson is considered to meet the limitation regardless of whether or not the crab steering joint is adjusted based on lateral inclination while step a is being performed because claim 7 would only require that step a) is performed at some point in time. For example, in a case where step a) is performed, and then later step b), based on lateral inclination, step b) would be, “in addition to step a)”.
With respect to claim 10, Anliker discloses an articulated construction machine comprising: a front carriage (2, Fig. 8) with a first travel unit (15a); a rear carriage (3) with a second travel unit (15b); an articulated pendulum joint device (14) connecting the front carriage to the rear carriage with an articulated joint steering axis and a pendulum joint oscillating axis, the articulated pendulum joint device having a steering drive (see “hydraulic piston-cylinder unit 14”, paragraph [0047]) for driving a steering movement about the articulated joint axis (see “…by means of which a specific angle of rotation of the two connecting plates 4, 6 relative to each other can be set”, paragraph [0047]); a crab steering joint device (7/13) for translational adjustment of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage, the crab steering joint device having an adjustment drive (13) for driving a translational adjustment movement (see “adjusted by a shortening or a lengthening of the hydraulic piston-cylinder-unit 13”, paragraph [0052]) of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage. Anliker further teaches carrying out the method according to claim 1 as described above. Anliker is silent in teaching a control device configured to carry out the method.
Hudson teaches a steering control unit (“controller”; paragraph [0008]) configured to carry out the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that having a controller to control steering according to the method is useful for implementing sensor based steering decisions (see paragraph [0008]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anliker in view of Hudson to have a controller implement the method of claim 1 so that steering decisions can be made based on data collected by vehicle sensors; for example, for allowing step b). of the method of clam 1 to be performed in a manner as to account for lateral acceleration as taught by Hudson (Hudson; see paragraph [0008]).
With respect to claim 11, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the articulated construction machine according to claim 10 but is silent in teaching a steering angle sensor for detecting a target steering angle and/or an actual steering angle between the front carriage and the rear carriage;
a lateral inclination sensor for detecting a lateral inclination of the front carriage and/or the rear carriage and/or a travel speed sensor (S4) for detecting a target travel speed and/or an actual travel speed; and wherein the steering control unit is in signal transmission connection with at least one of these sensors and is configured such that step b) is carried out as a function of at least one of the measured values transmitted by the at least one sensor.
Hudson teaches a steering angle sensor (222) for detecting an actual steering angle between the front carriage and the rear carriage (see “configured to determine an amount of pivot or an articulation steering angle at the articulation joint”, paragraph [0052]), means for determining a target steering angle (“determine a desired steering angle”, paragraph [0055]), a lateral inclination sensor (226) for detecting a lateral inclination of the front carriage and/or the rear carriage (see paragraph [0054]), a travel speed sensor (212) for detecting an actual travel speed, and means for determining a target travel speed (“desired vehicle speed”, paragraph [0017]); a control unit in signal transmission connection with at least one of these sensors and is configured such that step b) is carried out as a function of at least one of the measured values transmitted by the at least one sensor.
Claims 4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anliker (US 20120000723 A1) in view of Hudson (US 20210061283 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 20120045281 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the adjustment in step b) is performed in the direction towards the inside of the curve of a steering turn performed in step a).
Wagner teaches a vehicle comprising a front carriage (10, Fig. 3) and a rear carriage (20) and a method for controlling steering of the vehicle comprising:
a). Adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage about the articulated joint axis (see Fig. 4 and “normal steering process”, paragraph [0003])
b). Adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering device (see Fig. 3 and “during crab steering”, paragraph [0030]),
wherein the adjustment in step b) is performed in the direction towards the inside of the curve of a steering turn performed in step a) (see “simultaneous execution”, paragraph [0030] and annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wagner further teaches that providing such a crab steering offset during turning is useful for roller machines for enabling compaction close to the edge of a turn and for extending the working width of the roller (see paragraph [0003]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anliker in view of Hudson in further view of Wagner to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow the vehicle to compact earth close to the inside edge of a turn and to extend the working width of the roller as taught by Wagner.
Regarding claim 6, the center of gravity of the front carriage or of the rear carriage in the horizontal reference plane being brought closer to or shifted onto a support axis of the articulated pendulum joint device appears to happen as a result of performing the method prescribed by claim 4. Accordingly, since Anliker in view of Hudson in further in view of Wagner teaches the method of claim 4, the combination of references would also result in the method of claim 6.
Claims 3 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anliker (US 20120000723 A1) in view of Hudson (US 20210061283 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pillar (US 5417299 A).
With respect to claim 3, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching that step b) is performed in addition to step a) only when a defined steering angle is exceeded.
Pillar teaches a method of controlling steering of an articulated vehicle comprising the steps:
a). Adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage about an articulated joint axis (see “turning of the front wheels”, Col. 4, L. 15), and
b). Adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering device (see “crab mode steering”, Col. 3, LL. 62),
wherein step b) is performed in addition to step a) only when a define steering angle is exceeded (“The purpose of the dead band is to permit the front wheels to be steered a pre-set amount (in this case, approximately 5.degree.) before beginning the rear wheel steering”, Col. 8, LL. 50-53).
Pillar further teaches that such a dead band is useful for allowing a vehicle to travel at high speeds in a coordinated steering mode while preventing the rear wheels from turning during high speed maneuvers like lane changes (Col. 3, LL. 55-60).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anliker in view of Hudson in further view of Pillar to arrive at the claimed invention and to prevent erroneous turning of the rear wheels while the vehicle is travelling at high speeds.
With respect to claim 8, Anliker in view of Hudson as modified above teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the speed of the construction machine is detected (Hudson; “ground speed as provided by the ground speed sensor”, paragraph [0066]) but is silent in teaching that in that step b), the extent of the adjustment of the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering joint device, is performed in addition to step a) depending on the current travel speed.
Pillar teaches a vehicle having a front carriage (206, Fig. 3A) and a rear carriage (202) and a method of controlling steering of the vehicle comprising:
a). Adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage about an articulated joint axis (see “turning of the front wheels”, Col. 4, L. 15)
b). Adjusting the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering device (see “crab mode steering”, Col. 3, LL. 62),
wherein the extent of the adjustment of the relative position of the front carriage relative to the rear carriage via the crab steering joint device, is performed in addition to step a) (“In coordinated steering, the front wheels and rear wheels are turned in generally opposite directions”, Col. 2, LL. 17-18) depending on the current travel speed (“Coordinated steering is safely employed for low speed maneuvers only”, Col. 2, LL. 17-20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anliker in view of Hudson in further view of Pillar to arrive at the claimed invention and to prevent unsafe operation conditions as taught by Pillar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, none of the cited references teach or otherwise suggest, “an edge cutter, which can be adjusted between a ground working position and a stowed position, and in that the steering control unit, in addition to step a), activates and/or deactivates step b) depending on the current position of the ground working device (20).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and discloses articulated vehicles capable of performing crab steering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/DREW J BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights