DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
2. 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.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a current longitudinal velocity of the vehicle).” should be rewritten as --a current longitudinal velocity of the vehicle.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20, as far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EFREMOV et al. (EP 4 368 468 A1).
Regarding claim 1, EFREMOV invention teaches a computer system [control system (10)] for determining a rotational speed limit for a steered axle of a vehicle having two steered axles [Figure 2 illustrates front axle (106) and rear axle (104)], the computer system (10) comprising processing circuitry [processor (12)] configured to: acquire a combined slip limit for the steered axle based on a slip diamond defining desired limits of longitudinal and lateral slip for the steered axle [para. 0019 teaches the function of the longitudinal slip and the lateral slip of the at least one wheel is a norm of a combined slip vector calculated based on the longitudinal slip and the lateral slip of the at least one wheel; and para. 0020 teaches the driving envelope constraint is expressed in terms of a maximum value of a linear combination of longitudinal slip and lateral slip of the at least one wheel; Furthermore, see para. 0071-0079]; acquire a current lateral slip of the steered axle [para. 0058 (equations 4-5); and Figure 3 (v, β, r)]; determine a longitudinal slip limit for the steered axle based on the combined slip limit and the current lateral slip of the steered axle [at least para. 0097]; and determine a rotational speed limit for the steered axle based on the determined longitudinal slip limit, a radius of a wheel of the steered axle, and a current longitudinal velocity of the vehicle [para. 0027-0029 teaches tracking an angular velocity of a wheel would be equivalent to a rotational speed limit for a steered axle; Furthermore, see equations 16-26 and Figure 3].
Regarding claim 2, as discussion in claim 1, Figure 2 illustrates a front steered axle (16) and a rear steered axle (14).
Regarding claim 3, as discussion in claim 1, furthermore, see para. 0073 (equation 12).
Regarding claim 4, as discussion in claim 1, furthermore, see para. 0079 (equation 15).
Regarding claim 5, as discussion in claim 1, see para. 0058 (equations 4-5).
Regarding claims 6, as discussion in claim 1, see para. 0058 (equation 4).
Regarding claim 7, as discussion in claim 1, see para. 0058 (equations 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, as discussion in claim 1, implicit from Figure 2 (β).
Regarding claim 9, as discussion in claim 1, see para. 0079 (implicit from equation 15).
Regarding claim 10, as discussion in claim 1, see para. 0079 (implicit from equation 15).
Regarding claim 11, as discussion in claim 1, see Figure 3.
Regarding claim 12, see discussion in claim 1 [Figure 2].
Regarding claim 13, see discussion in claim 1 [Figure 3].
Regarding claims 14-17, see discussion in claims 2-5.
Regarding claim 18, see discussion in claim 11.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, see discussion in claim 1; furthermore, see para. 0031-0035.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
July 31, 2026
/JHH/
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights