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 .
Amendments
Claim amendments filed 6/30/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending with claims 12-16 withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Grip recognition unit in claim 1, and
Driver recognition unit in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Grip recognition unit in claim 1 is taken to be a sensor as described in 0009, and
Driver recognition unit in claim 3 is taken to be a sensor as described in 0054.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR20060035399A) in view of Kong (US20150217794), Ishakawa (JP2011121554A) and Birgel (DE102017211515A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a sterilization system for a steering wheel comprising an ultraviolet lamp (10) installed on one side of the inside of a spoke (30) of a steering wheel (i.e. this reads on the claimed limitation “UV lamp disposed within the steering wheel”); and an optical fiber (42) installed along a moving hole (12) penetrated between the spoke (30) of the steering wheel and a rim (20), with one end positioned adjacent to the ultraviolet lamp (10) and the other end installed inside along the shape of the rim (20) (this reads on the claimed limitation “optical fiber disposed within the steering wheel along the rim”). The reference goes on to state that in addition, it is preferable that the rim (20) is formed in a circular ring shape so that the driver can hold it by hand and rotate it, and it is preferable that the spoke (30) connected to the rim (20) is formed so as to be connected to the center of the steering wheel (100). As shown in FIG. 4, it is preferable that the optical fiber (42) is positioned so that one end thereof is adjacent to the ultraviolet lamp (10), and that the covering of the end of the optical fiber (42) is exposed. It is preferable that the ultraviolet rays emitted from the ultraviolet lamp (10) are emitted at a wavelength in the range of 200 to 280 nm. The UV light is emitted through a plurality of emission holes (60) formed through the right side and the bottom side along the outer shape of the rim (20) so that ultraviolet rays emitted from the optical fiber (42) can be emitted to the outside of the steering wheel (this reads on the claimed limitation “configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) rays via the plurality of holes through the optical fiber”).
This reference fails to teach:
(1) a cover with holes positioned on the steering wheel
(2) a plurality of optical fibers
(3) grip recognition; and
(4) a controller
Regarding feature 1, Kong teaches in section [0036] and figure 4 a steering wheel cover comprises a core layer 60 having an outer surface 62, an annular channel configured to hold therein a steering wheel 49, and one or more holes 64 or other openings extending through the core layer 60.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Jeon does not specifically state that a cover (having holes) is provided over the steering wheel (rim), it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to cover the steering wheel rim of Jeon with the cover according to Kong because this would provide a steering wheel with which the gripping and the pleasant grip feel are improved (comfier grip). Kong specifically states in section [0037] that the holes 64 or other openings may improve grip on the steering wheel and/or add to the overall appearance of the steering wheel without adding significant bulk to the size of the steering wheel. With this being obvious this reads on the claimed limitation “a cover extending along and covering a rim of the steering wheel and having a plurality of holes distributed evenly over the cover” (as can be seen from figure 4 the holes are evenly distributed (pattern)).
Regarding feature 2, although Jeon does not teach a plurality of optical fibers, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple optical fibers because the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (2144.04VI B). The use of multiple optical fibers would allow optimum signal (light) transmittance.
Regarding feature 3 Ishikawa discloses a wheel grip detection device for a steering system (paragraph 0001). Ishikawa discloses typical contact sensors detect the contact portion of the steering wheel system (paragraph 0003). Ishikawa discloses the position of the hand is identified (paragraph 0006).
Although modified Jeon does not teach a grip recognition unit it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Jeon, as modified above, to incorporate the teaching of Ishikawa to provide a grip detection system to detect the position and portion of the steering wheel that is gripped because this would allow one to determine the sterilizer effectiveness remaining on the portions of the steering wheel and also when to start applying sterilization to the steering wheel/hands of the driver automatically once the steering wheel is gripped (this reads on the claimed “grip recognition unit).
Regarding feature 4, Birgel discloses a method for disinfecting at least one palm in a motor vehicle. Birgle discloses a sensor to detect when a hand or palm is in a suitable position (paragraph 0003). Birgle discloses the disinfection is controlled by control unit (paragraph 0033). Birgle discloses the disinfection is dispensed onto the contact surface of a steering wheel (paragraph 0015) because this would allow the most frequently contacted surface to be sterilized (disinfected) (paragraph 0015)).
Although modified Jeon does not teach a controller configured to control the sterilizing device to sterilize the steering wheel based on the detected grip position and/or grip time, it would be prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Birgle to provide a controller and sensor as way to control the operation of the sterilizing device of modified Jeon above based on the sensed detected position of the hand because this would allow the sterilization of the steering wheel/hands of the driver to occur automatically once the steering wheel is gripped (i.e. no need to manually operate the UV lights as is apparent from Jeon) and thus an automatic operation of the sterilizing system by way of a grip recognition unit/controller would be an improvement of the teachings of Jeon (this reads on the claimed “controller”).
With the modification as defined above being made, the plurality of optical fibers are indirectly connected to the cover by way of the rim thus reading on the claimed limitation “and connected to the cover”.
Further regarding features 3 and 4 above, “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.04 III.
Regarding claim 2, Jeon disclose all the elements of claim 1 as indicated above but does not disclose the grip recognition unit is connected to a camera sensor positioned at the vehicle and/or a pressure sensor positioned at the steering wheel.
Ishikawa discloses a grip recognition unit including an imaging device composed of digital camera disposed a position in the vehicle interior (paragraph 0042). Doing so allows capture of an image of the space in the vehicle interior that includes the steering wheel.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jeon by including an imaging system comprising a camera disposed in the vehicle interior because this would allow capture of an image of the space that includes the steering wheel.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Jeon disclose all the elements of claim 1 as indicated above but does not discloses sterilization range based on detected grip position and sterilization intensity is based on grip time.
Ishikawa discloses a wheel grip detection device for a steering system (paragraph 0001). Ishikawa discloses typical contact sensors detect the contact portion of the steering wheel system (paragraph 0003). Ishikawa discloses the position of the hand is identified (paragraph 0006).
Birgel discloses a method for disinfecting at least one palm in a motor vehicle. Birgle discloses a sensor to detect when a hand or palm is in a suitable position (paragraph 0003). Birgle discloses the disinfection is controlled by control unit (paragraph 0033). Birgle discloses the disinfection is dispensed onto the contact surface of a steering wheel (paragraph 0015). Doing so allows the most frequently contacted surface to be disinfected (paragraph 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing the sensors of Ishikawa and the method of Birgel to sterilize a range of the steering wheel based on grip position and sterilization time (based on griptime) because this would sterilize the steering wheel/hands based on the detected position of the hands and would prevent the UV light rays from going to places they should not go (i.e. areas other than the steering wheel) because if the steering wheel was not gripped, sterilization would not commence.
Regarding claim 10, modified Jeon disclose all the elements of claim 1 as indicated above but does not disclose a signal generator based on the detected grip position and/or griptime.
Ishikawa discloses a wheel grip detection device for a steering system (paragraph 0001). Ishikawa discloses typical contact sensors detect the contact portion of the steering wheel system (paragraph 0003). Ishikawa discloses the position of the hand is identified (paragraph 0006).
Birgel discloses a method for disinfecting at least one palm in a motor vehicle. Birgle discloses a sensor to detect when a hand or palm is in a suitable position (paragraph 0003). Birgle discloses the disinfection is controlled by control unit (paragraph 0033). Birgle discloses the disinfection is dispensed onto the contact surface of a steering wheel (paragraph 0015). Doing so allows the most frequently contacted surface to be disinfected (paragraph 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing signal generators. Sensors inherently generate signals and sterilization based on grip position, as a result of the sensor signals, as is disclosed by Ishikawa and Birgel. This would sterilize the steering wheel/hands based on the detected position of the hands and would prevent the UV light rays from going to places they should not go (i.e. areas other than the steering wheel) because if the steering wheel was not gripped, sterilization would not commence.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR20060035399A) in view of Kong (US20150217794), Ishakawa (JP2011121554A) and Birgel (DE102017211515A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mulinski (DE102014017616A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jeon disclose all elements of claim 10 as indicated above but fails to disclose a status indicator (indication of the steering wheel sterilization request).
Mulinksi discloses a steering wheel sterilization system comprising: a sterilizing device configured to sterilize a steering wheel of a vehicle (paragraph 0001, device for cleaning vehicle steering wheel) and continues to teach (paragraph 0011) that status indicators, for example on an instrument panel, optical display (paragraph 0012) or acoustic signals, are used to indicate when bacterial prevention effectiveness is diminished and renewal is requested are known.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing a status indicator according to Mulinski because this would allow the operator to know when sterilization is requested to be performed.
Claims 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR20060035399A) in view of Kong (US20150217794), Ishakawa (JP2011121554A) and Birgel (DE102017211515A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FURUSE (JP 3637169 B2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jeon disclose all the elements of claim 1 as indicated above but does not teach disclose a driver recognition unit configured to detect (1) a driver status indicating whether a driver is in the vehicle, and/or (2) driver information of the driver, wherein the controller is further configured to control the sterilizing device to selectively sterilize the steering wheel based on the detected driver status or driver information.
Furuse discloses a vehicle interior sterilization device, where before sterilization, a control unit detects all passengers have exited before the sterilization is performed (paragraph 0008). Doing so provides measures that are taken to keep humans safe from sterilizing agents (paragraph 0004). This is accomplished by way of a sensor (paragraphs 0015 and 0022).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing an indicator that indicates when all passengers have exited the vehicle prior to initializing sterilization because this would prevent excess exposure of sterilizing agent to occupants.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jeon disclose all the elements of claim 3 as indicated above but does not disclose the controller is configured to control the sterilizing device to sterilize the steering wheel when the detected driver status indicates that the driver has alighted from the vehicle.
Furuse discloses a vehicle interior sterilization device, where before sterilization a control unit detects all passengers have exited before the sterilization is performed (paragraph 0008). Doing so provides measures that are taken to keep humans safe from sterilizing agents (paragraph 0004). This is accomplished by way of a sensor (paragraphs 0015 and 0022).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing a mechanism (see claim 3 above) for detection of passengers have exited the vehicle prior to initializing sterilization because this would prevent excess exposure of sterilizing agent to occupants.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jeon disclose all the elements of claim 3 as indicated above but does not disclose the driver recognition unit is connected to a camera sensor that is positioned at the vehicle and configured to recognize the driver status and/or driver information.
Ishikawa discloses camera sensor inside a vehicle (0045) used to recognize driver information of grip detection (0001). Doing so allows the system to determine whether steering wheel is being gripped.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing a camera sensor that is positioned inside a vehicle that is configured to recognize driver status and/or driver information because this would ensure that the system is able to recognize the driver’s hands on the steering wheel.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Jeon (KR20060035399A) in view of Kong (US20150217794), Ishakawa (JP2011121554A), Birgel (DE102017211515A1) and FURUSE (JP 3637169 B2) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gutowski (US-20210339712-A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jeon discloses all the elements of claim 4 as indicated above but fails to disclose activating a heater when activating the sterilizing device.
Gutowski teaches in claim 1, when a request to activate the sterilization device, a heater is activated. Doing so eliminates heat sensitive bacteria (paragraph 0003) (Ln. 205-230).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing activating a heater simultaneous with sterilization because Gutowski teaches that this provides the elimination of heat sensitive bacteria. Performing this operation simultaneous with other sterilization efforts provides faster sterilization.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR20060035399A) in view of Kong (US20150217794), Ishakawa (JP2011121554A), Birgel (DE102017211515A1) and FURUSE (JP 3637169 B2) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220193278).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jeon disclose all elements of claim 3 as indicated above. The modified disclosure to claim 3 teaches detecting grip position and/or grip time and is associated with detected driver information, such as the driver being in the vehicle, and selectively sterilizing the steering wheel based on the detected driver information and stored grip position or grip time associated with the detected driver information, as disclosed above. Modified Jeon does not disclose the controller is configured to: store, at a data storage, the grip information.
Lee (US 20220193278) teaches a control logic for automatically sterilizing a steering wheel (paragraph 0065). The control device includes control module, memory, and processor configured to execute steps in algorithm (paragraph 0060). The controller sterilizes based on information received from driver detection sensor (paragraph 0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jeon by providing control logic according to Lee because this would allow the sterilization after the driver has left vehicle, as is disclosed by Furuse, as noted above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Michael A Marcheschi whose telephone number is (571)272-1374. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, TH, F 830-630, Off Every WED. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300
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.
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.
/MICHAEL A. MARCHESCHI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights