DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections, the applicant cites paragraph on page 10 of the specification to support the rejected claim language and argues that: “In the above-cited paragraph, it is furthermore defined, that there is no function between isolated surfaces, i.e., between the operating panels. These regions between the operating panels are defined in the above-mentioned claim 1 as "inactive regions" as there is no operating function when contacting the operating surface within these inaction regions. Moreover, in the above-mentioned cited paragraph of the originally filed specification it is mentioned that locking according to the invention is only released when the finger is located on a designated touch surface meaning on an isolated touch surface, i.e., on an operating panel.”
These arguments are not persuasive because the newly added claim language clearly includes a function of sensing contacting in the inactive region. This function is not taught in the cited paragraph, in fact, the opposite appears to be disclosed. Furthermore, it is also not clear that this paragraph is directed to the structure in the elected figure 1.
The claimed force being not released is also not discussed in the cited paragraph. No force is mentioned. Only release of locking is discussed, which is not equivalent to release of force, and thus cannot support the argued claim limitations. For these reasons, the 35 USC 112 rejections are maintained.
With respect to the obviousness rejection, the applicant also argues that the prior art does not teach these newly added claim limitations. These arguments are moot however, because there is no support for these newly added limitations in the cited section of the specification of the application. The prior art teaches releasing the holding force in the same way as disclosed by the applicant in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, in claim 1, it is not clear where in the specification it is discussed that “…the contact sensor system only upon sensing contacting of an operating panel provides a sensing signal for the control unit for releasing the rest position holding force, such that the rest position holding force is not released when the contact sensor system senses contacting of the operating surface in the inactive region.” There is no clear mention in the disclosure of releasing and not releasing a holding force using the claimed logic, including sensing of contacting of both the active and inactive regions, with respect to structure shown in figure 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 1, the newly added limitations define an inactive region, but also include the contact sensor system sensing contacting in the inactive region. It is not clear how an inactive region be sensed if it is inactive. There is no support for these limitations that can be found in the disclosure to clarify these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015008571) in view of Fujita et al. (US 6118435).
In re claim 1, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses an operating device intended to be installed in a vehicle, comprising a housing (5), an operating element (6) which is movably mounted in and/or on the housing and can be manually transferred from a rest position to a function-triggering position, a switch (32) which can be actuated by the operating element when the operating element is manually transferred to the function-triggering position, a holding-force generation unit (13-14) for generating a holding force by means of which the operating element is held in its rest position, and a control unit (2) for electrically controlling the holding-force generation unit for the purpose of setting the holding force, and a contact sensor system for detecting a contacting of the operating element, the contact sensor system outputting a sensing signal to the control unit when contacting an operating panel is detected (control unit receiving signal 31 or 7), wherein the operating element comprises an operating surface having several operating panels (7), and wherein the contact sensor system only upon sensing contacting of an operating panel provides a sensing signal for the control unit for releasing the rest position holding force (this is an inherent functionality and is discussed throughout the disclosure and is clearly summarized in claim 1 of the reference). Wachinger does not disclose inactive region between the operating panels. Fujita however, teaches a device having operating panels (3a) spaced apart and defining an inactive region (3b) between the panels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the teaching of spaced apart panels of Fujita to the panels of Wachinger to allow for easier selection of a particular panel by the user and to reduce the probability of the wrong panel being selected. The modified device is also inherently capable of releasing or not releasing the holding force based on whether the active or inactive region is contacted since the device of Fujita teaches creation of unique signals for contacting active or inactive regions (this is shown in the flowcharts shown in the figures as well as associated discussion in the specification).
In re claim 2, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that the holding-force generation unit comprises an electromagnet (14) having a stator with an electric coil and an armature, and that the control unit for controlling the electric coil of the electromagnet is connected to the electric coil (as shown in the figures).
In re claim 3, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that the electromagnet is configured as a permanent holding electromagnet whose stator has a permanent magnet (17, see paragraph 32).
In re claim 4, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that the contact sensor system outputs a sensing signal to the control unit (control unit receiving signal 31 or 7) when contacting of the operating element is detected, and the control unit then controlling the holding-force generation unit to set a desired holding force acting in the rest position of the operating element when it is contacted, which holding force can be lower than the holding force with which the operating element is held without being contacted (inherent functionality of the disclosed structure).
In re claim 5, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that that the contact sensor system outputs different sensing signals to the control unit depending on the operating panel for which a contact is detected (the device can detect which panel 7 is touched), and that the control unit controls the holding-force generation unit by means of different control signals depending on the different sensing signals for the purpose of generating different holding forces (this is an inherent capability because the device is capable of detecting which panel is actuated).
In re claim 7, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that the operating element is linearly guided and translationally movable from the rest position to the function-triggering position (as clearly shown in the figures).
In re claim 8, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that the operating element is tiltable or pivotable and is movable from the rest position to the function-triggering position by tilting or pivoting (this is an inherent capability since guide devices 11 are independent, thereby allowing one side of the actuating element to tilt/pivot with respect to the other side).
In re claim 9, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses that the switch is a mechanical switch (the switch moves mechanically, as seen in the figures).
In re claim 11, Wachinger, in figures 1-2, discloses an inductive coil (16) and a capacitive switch (9).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015008571) in view of Fujita et al. (US 6118435) and Nehl et al. (US 2007/0285195).
In re claim 6, Wachinger/Fujita discloses all of the claimed structure except for the use of magnetorheological force element. Nehl teaches that it is known in the art to use magnetorheological element in an actuating device (see paragraph 3 as well as other portions of the disclosure). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted a magnetorheological element as taught by Nehl to the device of Wachinger/Fujita to provide a more linear force function to the force unit.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837