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 Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 06/24/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1 and 3-20 have been amended; claim 2 has been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. The examiner further notes inclusion of improper unlabeled amendments for at least claims 13 and 20. Claims 1 and 3-20 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 2-16 and 20 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 3-16 and 20 and the cancellation of claim 2.
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claim.
Applicant asserts on pages 13-15 of the remarks filed 06/24/2026 that it would be improper to maintain each of the alternative prior art rejections of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3747827 A1 to Ringius et al., and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius in view of JP 2003-182991 A to Chin, in view of the amendments to the claim, which incorporate the limitations of originally-filed claim 2 into claim 1, because Ringius does not disclose any of the features of the amendments to claim 1 (see pages 13-14 of the remarks), and because Chin does not teach or render obvious the features of the amendments to claim 1 (see page 15 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted Ringius teaches that an angle for a steering maneuver (e.g., “first rotation angle control quantity”) to control a steerable wheel 35 (e.g., “steering wheel”) to most quickly achieve centering of a vehicle 1 on a center line 34 of an aisle 22 between a wall-ribbon 12 and a wall-ribbon 13 is determined based on a determination that the vehicle 1 is not centered on the center line 34 (e.g., “according to the offset information”), and, absent coincidence, the determined angle for the steering maneuver would fail to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34 via the controlling of the steerable wheel 35 if the determination of the determined angle for the steering maneuver completely disregards a set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 given that varying of the set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 would necessarily vary the steering maneuver for a given angle for the steering maneuver, such that the angle for the steering maneuver to control the steerable wheel 35 to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34 is necessarily further determined according to the set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0039, 0045 & 0051-0054 of Ringius). Therefore, Ringius fully teaches “determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to a to-be-controlled steering wheel, a first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel,” as recited by amended independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Next, it is noted that ¶ 0013 of Ringius further discloses that: “By applying four detecting devices there is increased safety as both the front part of the vehicle and the back part can be monitored for the distance to the wall-ribbon, i.e. the warehouse rack. Thus a more sensitive system is built. Also it will be more efficient to monitor four distances for the purpose of controlling the vehicle in the aisle in respect of the angle to the centre line following the aisle. By providing a sensor pair on each side in front to positioner in correct manner of the material handling vehicle in the aisle is easier.” (emphasis added), and ¶ 0039 of Ringius further discloses that: “The detecting devices can detect the distance from the first side 9 to a wall-ribbon 12. The detecting devices can detect the distance from the second side 11 to another wall-ribbon 13. […] By having four detecting devices it is possible to check the angle of the vehicle 1 at any moment, in that it is possible to compare four different distances to the respective side of the vehicle 1.” (emphasis added). Therefore, Ringius further fully teaches that “determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel” includes “calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate,” as recited by amended independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner also cannot agree with the implication set forth by page 14 of Applicant’s remarks that the prior art (e.g., Ringius) must include use of the claim term “second rotation angle control quantity” in order to properly anticipation (or render obvious) amended claim 1. The examiner also respectfully disagrees that the broad scope of “calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate” is limited to the relatively narrow meaning of “calculating a target angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate—a control quantity computation step” as asserted by page 14 of Applicant’s remarks. Therefore, 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 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).
The examiner also respectfully disagrees that the broad scope of “calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate” is limited to the relatively narrow meaning of “calculating a target angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate—a control quantity computation step” as asserted by page 14 of Applicant’s remarks. Therefore, 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 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).
The examiner also cannot agree with the assertions in the last paragraph of page 14 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, Applicant manufactures a quote that is not present in the non-final Office Action mailed 04/09/2026 and attributes said manufactured quote to page 8 of said non-final Office Action in order to set forth the notion of a “concession” by the non-final Office Action. It is unmistakable that page 8 of the non-final Office Action differently stated:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also, the immediately preceding paragraph on page 7 of the non-final Office Action differently stated:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, it is unclear why Applicant’s assertions in the last paragraph of page 14 of the remarks chose to misrepresent the non-final Office Action by inclusion of the aforementioned manufactured quote. Clearly, the non-final Office Action neither included the aforementioned manufactured quote of Applicant’s remarks nor included the “concession” asserted by the final paragraph of page 14 of Applicant’s remarks.
Instead, it is clear that Ringius further fully teaches that “determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel” includes “determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel,” as recited by amended independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0039, 0045 & 0051-0054 of Ringius).
As noted above, Ringius fully teaches each and every limitation of amended claim 1 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the anticipation rejection has been maintained and updated in order to address the amendments to the claim.
Again, as discussed in detail above, Ringius teaches each and every limitation of the vehicle control method of claim 1 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation, and Applicant did not sufficiently show that Ringius does not necessarily fully teach determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel).
Regardless, even if Ringius is not interpreted or relied upon to teach determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel), the examiner notes that Chin teaches determining a steering wheel angle of a steering wheel of a vehicle according to position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 (especially Fig. 2) and as discussed by at least ¶ 0024-0025], and the examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control method of Ringius with the teachings of Chin, if even necessary, to include determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel) because Chin demonstrates that a steering wheel angle of a steering wheel of a vehicle varies according to position information corresponding to the steering wheel, such that the angle for the steering maneuver to control the steerable wheel 35 in Ringius must necessarily be further determined according to the set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 in order to actually achieve the objective of Ringius to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually on page 15 of the remarks, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The alternative obviousness rejection of claim 1 does not rely on Chin to teach the elements set forth by Applicant’s assertions on page 15 of the remarks, and it is unclear why Applicant chooses to assert that Chin fails to teach elements that Chin has not been relied upon to teach by the alternative obviousness rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and the subject matter of lines 1-10 of claim 18 is identical to the subject matter now added by amendment to the last nine lines of claim 17, such that claim 18 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3747827 A1 to Ringius et al. (hereinafter: “Ringius”); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius in view of JP 2003-182991 A to Chin (hereinafter: “Chin”).
With respect to claim 1, Ringius teaches a vehicle control method, applied to a vehicle (1) comprising at least one steering wheel (35), wherein the vehicle is drivable between a first track (e.g., 12) and a second track (e.g., 13) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7), and the method comprises: detecting a first distance (e.g., 32) between the vehicle and the first track, and detecting a second distance (e.g., 33) between the vehicle and the second track (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0039-0045 & 0050-0051); determining, according to the first distance and the second distance, offset information of a symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to a track centerline (34); wherein the first track and the second track are axisymmetric with respect to the track centerline [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046 & 0051-0054, the vehicle 1 is determined to be not centered on the center line 34 of an aisle 22 between the wall-ribbon 12 and the wall-ribbon 13 (e.g., “offset information of a symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to a track centerline”) based on comparisons between the detected distance 32 and the detected distance 33 (e.g., “according to the first distance and the second distance”)]; determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to a to-be-controlled steering wheel, a first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel; wherein the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel is used to indicate a set position of the to-be-controlled steering wheel on the vehicle, and the to-be-controlled steering wheel is any one of the at least one steering wheel [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0045 & 0051-0054, an angle for a steering maneuver (e.g., “first rotation angle control quantity”) to control the steerable wheel 35 to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34 is determined based on the determination that the vehicle 1 is not centered on the center line 34 (e.g., “according to the offset information”); also, absent coincidence, the angle for the steering maneuver would fail to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34 via the controlling of the steerable wheel 35 if the determination of the angle for the steering maneuver completely disregards a set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 given that varying of the set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 would necessarily vary the steering maneuver for a given angle for the steering maneuver, such that the angle for the steering maneuver to control the steerable wheel 35 to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34 is necessarily further determined according to the set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1]; and controlling, according to the first rotation angle control quantity, rotation of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, to change a travel direction of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, such that during travel of the vehicle, the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle overlaps with the track centerline (for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0045 & 0051-0054, the steerable wheel 35 is controlled according to the angle for the steering maneuver to control the steerable wheel 35 to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34 during travel of the vehicle 1), wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013 & 0039); and determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0039, 0045 & 0051-0054).
As discussed in detail above, Ringius teaches each and every limitation of the vehicle control method of claim 1 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that Ringius does not necessarily fully teach determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel) and/or in such a case where Ringius is not interpreted or relied upon to teach determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel), it is also noted that Chin teaches determining a steering wheel angle of a steering wheel of a vehicle according to position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 (especially Fig. 2) and as discussed by at least ¶ 0024-0025].
Therefore, even if Ringius is not interpreted or relied upon to teach determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control method of Ringius with the teachings of Chin, if even necessary, to include determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel further according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel (and therefore wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises … determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel) because Chin demonstrates that a steering wheel angle of a steering wheel of a vehicle varies according to position information corresponding to the steering wheel, such that the angle for the steering maneuver to control the steerable wheel 35 in Ringius must necessarily be further determined according to the set position of the steerable wheel 35 on the vehicle 1 in order to actually achieve the objective of Ringius to most quickly achieve centering of the vehicle 1 on the center line 34.
With respect to claim 8, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises an angular motion detection sensor (e.g., 18-21), determining, according to the first distance and the second distance, offset information of the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to the track centerline comprises: determining a travel direction of the vehicle through the angular motion detection sensor (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0028, 0039 & 0051), and according to the travel direction of the vehicle and a difference value between the first distance and the second distance, determining offset information of the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to the track centerline (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0028, 0039, 0046 & 0051-0054).
With respect to claim 9, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: determining, according to the offset information and position information of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, first offset information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, wherein the first offset information comprises a first distance vector between the set position of the to-be-controlled steering wheel and the track centerline, and a first deflection steering angle between a current travel direction of the to-be-controlled steering wheel and the track centerline; and determining, according to the first offset information, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0028, 0039, 0046 & 0051-0054).
With respect to claim 11, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein a chassis of the vehicle is provided with the at least one steering wheel and at least one directional wheel, the at least one directional wheel is configured to drive the vehicle to perform translational movement (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0037-0038), the vehicle is configured to send the first rotation angle control quantity to the to-be-controlled steering wheel of the at least one steering wheel, to drive the to-be-controlled steering wheel to rotate, to change a travel direction of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, thereby changing a travel direction of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises a first distance detection sensor (e.g., 18 or 20) arranged on a first side surface of the vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 1) and a second distance detection sensor (e.g., 19 or 21) arranged on a second side surface of the vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 1), and detecting the first distance between the vehicle and the first track, and detecting the second distance between the vehicle and the second track comprises: detecting the first distance between the vehicle and the first track through the first distance detection sensor, and detecting the second distance between the vehicle and the second track through the second distance detection sensor (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0039-0045 & 0050-0051).
With respect to claim 15, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein determining, according to the first distance and the second distance, offset information of the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to the track centerline comprises: determining, by the vehicle, the travel direction of the vehicle through an angular motion detection sensor (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0028, 0039 & 0051), calculating a difference value between the first distance and the second distance as a fifth difference value (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046 & 0051-0054), and determining, according to the travel direction of the vehicle and the fifth difference value, offset information of the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to the track centerline (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0013, 0028, 0039, 0046 & 0051-0054).
With respect to claim 16, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: determining, according to the offset information and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, a first rotation angle that the to-be-controlled steering wheel needs to rotate, and determining, according to the first rotation angle, the first rotation angle control quantity (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 17, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is drivable between a first track and a second track, and the vehicle comprises: at least one steering wheel, being used to drive the vehicle to perform translational movement and rotary movement; and a memory (e.g., “a device for storing such as a server, USB-stick, or in another material handling vehicle, or any other appropriate storage medium”) and a processor (e.g., 7), wherein the memory stores a computer program (e.g., “computer software”), and when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor is enabled to perform operations comprising: obtaining a first distance between the vehicle and the first track, and obtaining a second distance between the vehicle and the second track; determining, according to the first distance and the second distance, offset information of a symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to a track centerline; wherein the first track and the second track are axisymmetric with respect to the track centerline; determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to a to-be-controlled steering wheel, a first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel; wherein the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel is used to indicate a set position of the to-be-controlled steering wheel on the vehicle, the to-be-controlled steering wheel is any one of the at least one steering wheel; and controlling, according to the first rotation angle control quantity, rotation of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, to change a travel direction of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, such that during travel of the vehicle, the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle overlaps with the track centerline; wherein determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate; and determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1 in view of at least ¶ 0049-0054 of Ringius).
With respect to claim 18, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle according to claim 17, wherein determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate; and determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 17).
With respect to claim 20, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, the computer program is executed by one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining a first distance between a vehicle and a first track, and obtaining a second distance between the vehicle and a second track determining, according to the first distance and the second distance, offset information of a symmetrical centerline of the vehicle relative to a track centerline; wherein the first track and the second track are axisymmetric with respect to the track centerline; determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to a to-be-controlled steering wheel on the vehicle, a first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel; wherein the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel is used to indicate a set position of the to-be-controlled steering wheel on the vehicle; and controlling, according to the first rotation angle control quantity, rotation of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, to change a travel direction of the to-be-controlled steering wheel, such that during travel of the vehicle, the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle overlaps with the track centerline; wherein determining, according to the offset information and position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: calculating, according to the offset information, a second rotation angle control quantity, wherein the second rotation angle control quantity corresponds to an angle that the symmetrical centerline needs to rotate; and determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 17).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius in view of Chin.
With respect to claim 3, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises two directional wheels (as discussed by at least ¶ 0037-0038); and determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: according to the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel and the second rotation angle control quantity, determining the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 2).
Ringius appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether a line connecting centers of the two directional wheels is perpendicular to the symmetrical centerline. Ringius also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises coordinate information of a center point of the to-be-controlled steering wheel in a preset planar coordinate system, a first axis direction of the preset planar coordinate system is parallel to the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle, a second axis direction of the preset planar coordinate system is perpendicular to the symmetrical centerline, and an origin of the preset planar coordinate system is a midpoint of the line connecting the centers of the two directional wheels. Ringius further appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the center point of the to-be-controlled steering wheel is not on the symmetrical centerline.
Chin further teaches a line connecting centers of two directional wheels of the vehicle is perpendicular to a symmetrical centerline of the vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4); the center point of the steering wheel is not on the symmetrical centerline (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4); and the position information corresponding to the steering wheel comprises coordinate information of a center point of the steering wheel in a preset planar coordinate system, a first axis direction of the preset planar coordinate system is parallel to the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle, a second axis direction of the preset planar coordinate system is perpendicular to the symmetrical centerline, and an origin of the preset planar coordinate system is a midpoint of the line connecting the centers of the two directional wheels (apparent from at least Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control method of Ringius with the teachings of Chin, if even necessary, such that a line connecting centers of the two directional wheels is perpendicular to the symmetrical centerline; the center point of the to-be-controlled steering wheel is not on the symmetrical centerline; and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises coordinate information of a center point of the to-be-controlled steering wheel in a preset planar coordinate system, a first axis direction of the preset planar coordinate system is parallel to the symmetrical centerline of the vehicle, a second axis direction of the preset planar coordinate system is perpendicular to the symmetrical centerline, and an origin of the preset planar coordinate system is a midpoint of the line connecting the centers of the two directional wheels because Chin further teaches that such an arrangement of the two directional wheels and the steering wheel on the vehicle is normal for a forklift-type vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0004 of Chin).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,595,331 to Thompson et al. (hereinafter: “Thompson”); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius in view of Chin, and in view of Thompson.
With respect to claim 4, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein determining, according to the second rotation angle control quantity and the position information corresponding to the to-be-controlled steering wheel, the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises: determining the second rotation angle control quantity as the first rotation angle control quantity of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 2).
Ringius appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether a center point of the to-be-controlled steering wheel is on the symmetrical centerline.
Thompson teaches arranging a center point of a steering wheel of a vehicle is on a symmetrical centerline of the vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control method of Ringius with the teachings of Thompson, if even necessary, such that a center point of the to-be-controlled steering wheel is on the symmetrical centerline because Thompson teaches that such an arrangement of two directional wheels and the steering wheel on the vehicle is normal for a forklift-type vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 of Chin).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius alone; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringius in view of Chin.
With respect to claim 12, Ringius (alternatively, Ringius modified supra) teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 1, wherein the to-be-controlled steering wheel comprises a steering motor (3) and a steering wheel body (35) (as depicted by at least Figs 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0037-0038), and the steering motor is configured to receive the first rotation angle control quantity, rotate according to the first rotation angle control quantity, and drive the steering wheel body to rotate, to change a travel direction of the to-be-controlled steering wheel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0037-0038 & 0051-0054); however, Ringius appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the to-be-controlled steering wheel further comprises a first transmission mechanism that is respectively connected with the steering motor and the steering wheel body. Therefore, Ringius also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the steering motor is configured to drive the steering wheel body to rotate through the first transmission mechanism.
Even so, the examiner took Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) via the non-final Office Action mailed 04/09/2026 that it was well-kwon and conventional at the time the invention was made to connect a steering motor and a steering wheel body via a transmission mechanism, including to drive the steering wheel body to rotate through the transmission mechanism via the steering motor to, for example, beneficially provide an indirect rotatable connection between the steering motor and the steering wheel body in a vehicle, thereby beneficially enabling the steering motor to be arranged separate from the steering wheel body on the vehicle. Because Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice via the response filed 06/24/2026, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03_C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control method of Ringius, if even necessary, such that the to-be-controlled steering wheel further comprises a first transmission mechanism that is respectively connected with the steering motor and the steering wheel body, where the steering motor is configured to drive the steering wheel body to rotate through the first transmission mechanism.
With respect to claim 13, Ringius modified supra teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 12, wherein the to-be-controlled steering wheel further comprises a drive motor, the drive motor is configured to drive the steering wheel body to rotate to drive the vehicle to perform translational movement (as depicted by at least Figs 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0037-0038), and the vehicle is configured to send a rotation speed instruction to the drive motor through a Controller Area Network, CAN, interface, and control a rotation speed of the drive motor to control a translation speed of the vehicle (as depicted by at least Figs 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0037-0038); however, Ringius appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the to-be-controlled steering wheel further comprises a second transmission mechanism that is respectively connected to the drive motor and the steering wheel body. Therefore, Ringius also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the drive motor is configured to drive the steering wheel body to rotate through the second transmission mechanism.
Even so, the examiner took Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) via the non-final Office Action mailed 04/09/2026 that it was well-known and conventional at the time the invention was made to connect a drive motor and a steering wheel body via a transmission mechanism, including to drive the steering wheel body to rotate through the transmission mechanism via the drive motor to, for example, beneficially provide an indirect rotatable connection between the drive motor and the steering wheel body in a vehicle, thereby beneficially enabling the drive motor to be arranged separate from the steering wheel body on the vehicle. Because Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice via the response filed 06/24/2026, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03_C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control method of Ringius, if even necessary, such that the to-be-controlled steering wheel further comprises a second transmission mechanism that is respectively connected to the drive motor and the steering wheel body, where the steering motor is configured to drive the steering wheel body to rotate through the second transmission mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, and 19 are 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.
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights