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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. 2009/0120085 A1 to Yamaura.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaura teaches a work vehicle comprising:
an axle case (“power cylinder tube” 11, Fig. 1, [0023]) that houses an axle (“rack shaft” 5, Fig. 1, [0023]) of a wheel (9, Fig. 1, [0021]);
a hydraulic cylinder (“steering-assist hydraulic power cylinder” 12, Fig. 1, [0023]) that is attached to the axle case (depicted in Fig. 1);
a hydraulic valve (“first check valve” 23a, Fig. 1, [0027]) that supplies hydraulic oil to the hydraulic cylinder (as recited in [0027]); and
a supply pipe (“first hydraulic line” 27, Fig. 2, [0031]) that connects the hydraulic valve (in Fig. 2, contained within “pump unit” 16) to the hydraulic cylinder (12, connection depicted in Fig. 2) and through which the hydraulic oil flows ([0032-0033]), wherein
the supply pipe (27) includes a flexible pipe (“flexible tube” 33, Fig. 2, [0031]) and a rigid pipe (“steel tube” 32, Fig. 2, [0031]),
a first end portion of the rigid pipe (leftmost end of 32 in Fig. 2) is connected to the hydraulic cylinder (connection to 12 via 11 depicted in Fig. 2), and
a second end portion of the rigid pipe (rightmost end of 32 in Fig. 2) is connected to a first end portion of the flexible pipe (leftmost end of 33, connection depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamaura further teaches wherein a first connection portion (the point where 32 and 33 connect, Fig. 2) between the second end portion of the rigid pipe (rightmost end of 32 in Fig. 2) and the first end portion of the flexible pipe (leftmost end of 33, Fig. 2) is closer to a swing center (center of 11, i.e., in the region of “piston” 5a, Figs. 1 and 2) of the axle case (11) than a second connection portion (the point where 32 and 11 connect, Fig. 2) between the first end portion of the rigid pipe (leftmost end of 32 in Fig. 2) and the hydraulic cylinder (12 via 11) as viewed in a front-rear direction (disposition between elements depicted in Fig. 2, which is from a front-on perspective).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamaura or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamaura in view of US Pub. 2005/0072258 A1 to Klais et al., hereinafter Klais.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamaura further teaches wherein the rigid pipe (32) is disposed above a lower end of the axle case (32 disposed above bottom of 11, Fig. 2).
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the figures of Yamaura are merely schematic in nature and fail to accurately depict the actual spatial orientation of the rigid pipe in relation to the axle case, Klais teaches a hydraulic steering system with a rigid pipe (“hydraulic circuit” 162, Fig. 3, [0031], analogous to Yamaura – 32) disposed above a lower end of the axle case (bottom of “housing” 110 in Fig. 3, analogous to Yamaura – 11).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the rigid pipe and axle case of Yamaura in the spatial orientation of the analogous structure as taught by Klais, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that placing the hydraulic pipes above the steering axle beneficially protects the pipes from road debris. Additionally see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) regarding rearrangement of parts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaura in view of Klais.
Regarding Claim 3, Yamaura teaches the work vehicle according to Claim 1, a first connection portion (portion where 32 and 33 connect and overlap, Fig. 2) between a second end portion of the rigid pipe (rightmost end of 32 in Fig. 2) and the first end portion of the flexible pipe (leftmost end of 33), and teaches an axle case (“power cylinder tube” 11, Fig. 1, [0023]) but does not explicitly teach that any portions of the hydraulic pipe are disposed behind the axle case.
In the same field of endeavor of hydraulic steering systems, Klais teaches analogous hydraulic circuitry (“hydraulic circuit” 162, Fig. 3, [0031], analogous to Yamaura – 32) disposed behind the axle case (behind “housing” 110 in Fig. 3, analogous to Yamaura – 11).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the hydraulic piping of Yamaura in the spatial position of the analogous hydraulic circuitry of Klais relative to the analogous axle case, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the beneficial effect of placing hydraulic tubing behind the axle case to shield the tubing from road debris. Additionally see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the case law precedent recited in the rejection of Claim 2 regarding rearrangement of parts.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaura in view of KR 20030013560 A to Park.
Regarding Claim 4, Yamaura teaches the work vehicle according to Claim 1 comprising the second end portion of the rigid pipe (rightmost end of 32 in Fig. 2) and an axle case (11) but does not teach a fixing member that fixes the second end portion of the rigid pipe to an outer surface of the axle case.
In the same field of endeavor of hydraulic power steering systems, Park teaches a fixing member (“hose mounting bracket” 150, Fig. 3, [0043-0044]) that fixes an analogous hydraulic pipe (“hydraulic hose” 120, Fig. 3, [0041-0043]) to an analogous outer surface of an axle case (“gear box” 130, Fig. 3, [0039-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the hydraulic steering system of Yamaura with the power steering hose mounting bracket of Park, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that using a mounting/fixing bracket to support the hydraulic lines of a power steering system at the axle beneficially reduces the possibility of the lines becoming disconnected or severed during operation (Park – [0035-0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Pub. 2022/0177024 A1 to Bandy discloses a hydraulic steering system and axle having an attached cylinder (“gearset” 30, Fig. 14, [0050]) which is supplied with hydraulic fluid ([0108]) via a combination of rigid metal tubing (33) and flexible rubber tubing (34, Fig. 14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Mitchell James Price/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights