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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 17 April 2026.
Claims 1 – 10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“controller” – claim 9
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the limitations, “it is determined” in claim 1 and “it is determine”, are indefinite because the term “it” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “it” refers. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the limitations,
Claim 1: “after the startup of the steering engine electric motor, signals of the inching switch are detected and it is determined once a signal corresponding to the inching switch being switched on is detected, whether a travel detection switch is in place, wherein if the travel detection switch is not in place, the steering engine electric motor is operated in an unlocking direction”, and
Claim 8: “when the steering engine electric motor operates in the locking direction, once detecting the signal corresponding to the inching switch being switched on, the steering engine electric motor is configured to stop, and at a stop state, it is determined once detecting a signal corresponding to the inching switch being switched on, whether the travel detection switch is in place, if the travel detection switch is not in place, the steering engine electric motor is configured to operate in the unlocking direction;
are indefinite because it is ambiguous as to what the term, “in place”, is vague and one having ordinary skill in the art what the term, “in place”, implies in relation to the claimed invention. The examiner notes that the travel detection switch is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention so the one having ordinary skill in the art does not know the relationship of the travel detection switch to the claimed invention. Therefore, if the one having ordinary skill in the art does not know the relationship of the travel detection switch to the claimed invention, how is the one having ordinary skill in the art to determine if the travel detection switch is in place? Second, the plain meaning of the term, “in place”, is “in an original or proper position” – Meriam Webster dictionary, indicating a specific position. However, the claim does not particularly pointing out and distinctly claim this specific position of the travel detection switch. As stated above, this specific position may not even be on the claimed invention. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner reserves judgement on the determination of allowability of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8 until the resolution of the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The objection to the drawings is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1 – 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1 – 10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicants have not amended the phrase "in place" as one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand the plain meaning of the phrase "in place" and the specification does not include any definition of the phrase that would provide a different meaning.
In response to applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand the plain meaning of the phrase "in place", the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s statement that the term, “in place”, is given its plain meaning; however, the limitation is vague. First, the examiner notes that the travel detection switch is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention so the one having ordinary skill in the art does not know the relationship of the travel detection switch to the claimed invention. Therefore, if the one having ordinary skill in the art does not the relationship of the travel detection switch to the claimed invention, how is the one having ordinary skill in the art to determine if the travel detection switch is in place? Second, the plain meaning of the term, “in place”, is “in an original or proper position” – Meriam Webster dictionary, indicating a specific position. However, the claim does not particularly pointing out and distinctly claim this specific position of the travel detection switch. The examiner notes the U.S. Supreme Court in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (2014) set the standard at “reasonable certainty” for one having ordinary skill in the art to understand the claim’s scope; however, in view of the two issues discussed above, the imprecise and vague phrasing of the limitation concerning the travel detection switch and whether it is in place or not in place creates multiple different interpretations which is unacceptable under the “reasonable certainty” standard.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
26 June 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights