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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 10/23/2025 have been entered. Claims 16-30 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every Claim Objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection previously set forth in the Non-final rejection dated 06/23/2025. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the previous claim objections rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
As noted above the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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) 16-21, 23-24, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20200290566 A1) in view of Lee (US 20190250767 A1).
Regarding Claim 16. Yamazaki
A computer-implemented calibrating method executed by an electronic control unit of a vehicle for calibrating a measuring device for a vehicle steering wheel,
the measuring device comprising:
at least one sensor for detecting a target's contact with or proximity to the vehicle steering wheel, installed on the vehicle steering wheel (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and para[0024]: a capacitive sensor 21 for converting the contact with a steering wheel 2 into an electric signal for detection.), and
an acquisition unit of an electronic control unit, connected to the at least one sensor in order to receive a detection signal (See Fig. 1 and para[0032]: The capacitance measurement circuit 14 is an electric circuit for measuring the detection value of the electrostatic capacitance. The capacitance measurement circuit 14 processes the electric signal acquired from the capacitive sensor 21.),
the calibrating method comprising the steps of:
carrying out a reference measurement by the acquisition unit of the electronic control unit, in order to measure a reference signal level received by the acquisition unit (See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and para[0052] – para[0054]: Therefore, it is estimated that the user is not on the driver's seat, and that the steering wheel 2 is in the non-grasped state. Thus, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value and notification processing of the abnormality of the capacitive sensor 21 based on the initial value of the electrostatic capacitance at the time of starting acquisition of the detection value estimated as being in the non-grasped state.),
recording the level of the reference signal in a non-volatile memory of the electronic control unit (See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and para[0052] – para[0054]: Thus, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value and notification processing of the abnormality of the capacitive sensor 21 based on the initial value of the electrostatic capacitance at the time of starting acquisition of the detection value estimated as being in the non-grasped state.) and/or
adjusting and recording in the non-volatile memory of the electronic control unit at least one initial threshold to be used by the electronic control unit to initiate a driving assistance action, depending on the level of the measured reference signal (See para[0043] and para[0053]: The prescribed threshold value corresponds to the difference between respective electrostatic capacitances in the case of being in a grasped state or in a non-grasped state, and is set at, for example, 100 pF. Incidentally, the threshold value is not limited to the value. The reference value is the value changed by setting processing described later.) and/or
recording a difference between the level of the reference signal and the initial threshold in the non-volatile memory of the electronic control unit (See para[0099]: The grasp determination ECU 1 determines that the difference between the detection value and the reference value of the electrostatic capacitance is not equal to or larger than the threshold value.).
Yamazaki is silent as to the language of:
placing the vehicle steering wheel with the at least one sensor in a known reference environment, said reference environment being arranged so as to be free of elements or targets that may be normally detected by the at least one sensor such that the at least one sensor will provide a known detection signal level.
Nevertheless Lee teaches:
placing the vehicle steering wheel with the at least one sensor in a known reference environment, said reference environment being arranged so as to be free of elements or targets that may be normally detected by the at least one sensor such that the at least one sensor will provide a known detection signal level (See para[0005], para[0034], para[0040], and para[0046]: In some embodiments, the inherent simulating value may be determined by using repeated experiments performed by a large quantity of signal processing circuits 12 provided with the signal simulation unit 125 in a clean environment (such as a testing room before delivery) before delivery (before device installation), and be pre-stored in the storage unit 127.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki by placing the vehicle steering wheel with the at least one sensor in a known reference environment, said reference environment being arranged so as to be free of elements or targets that may be normally detected by the at least one sensor such that the at least one sensor will provide a known detection signal level such as that of Lee. Lee teaches, “a detection mechanism is needed to understand impact of a to-be-measured environment on a measurement value of a capacitive sensing device, and determine which safety reference point is used to perform measurement before a correct measurement value can be obtained“ (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki, because placing a sensor in a known reference environment would have helped to determine a safety reference point that measurements can be compared to and correct for environment impact, as recognized by Lee.
Regarding Claim 17, Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
wherein the recording of the level of the reference signal and/or of the adjusted threshold and/or of the difference is performed in a memory unit of the electronic control unit (See Fig. 1, para[0029], and para[0052] – para[0054]: The control part 11 includes an arithmetic processing device such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) or a MPU (Micro-Processing Unit). Thus, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value.).
Regarding Claim 18. Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
the measuring device comprising a plurality of sensors for detecting the target's contact with or proximity to the vehicle steering wheel (See Fig. 2 and para[0040] – para[0041]: the steering wheel 2 has a plurality of electrodes 2a in the inside thereof. The electrodes 2a are conductive members, and, for example, three electrodes 2a are provided along the circumference of the steering wheel 2. The sensor circuit (not shown) in accordance with the capacitive sensor 21 detects the outputted voltage, and thereby detects the electrostatic capacitance coupled with the electrode 2a.), or
the at least one sensor comprising a plurality of detection regions (See Fig. 2 and para[0040] – para[0041]: the steering wheel 2 has a plurality of electrodes 2a in the inside thereof. The electrodes 2a are conductive members, and, for example, three electrodes 2a are provided along the circumference of the steering wheel 2. The sensor circuit (not shown) in accordance with the capacitive sensor 21 detects the outputted voltage, and thereby detects the electrostatic capacitance coupled with the electrode 2a.),
wherein the calibrating method comprises the reference measurement step for at least one detection sensor individually or for at least one detection region individually (See Fig. 4, para[0051] – para[0052], and para[0062]: The control part 11 which has started the own device starts processing of acquiring the detection value of the electrostatic capacitance to be coupled to the electrode 2a detected by the capacitive sensor 21. Thus, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value and notification processing of the abnormality of the capacitive sensor 21 based on the initial value of the electrostatic capacitance at the time of starting acquisition of the detection value estimated as being in the non-grasped state.).
Regarding Claim 19. Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
comprising an automatic starting step, initiated by the electronic control unit, after a step of detecting the placement of the vehicle steering wheel in the reference environment (See Fig. 4 and para[0062]: When the control part 11 determines that the own device is in the suspended mode (Step S12: YES), the control part 11 starts the own device, and puts the own device into the operating mode (Step S13). The control part 11 starts processing of acquiring the detection value of the electrostatic capacitance detected by the capacitive sensor 21 (Step S14).).
Regarding Claim 20. Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
comprising a validation step consisting in comparing the reference signal level with at least one predetermined threshold or compliance range (See Fig. 4, para[0052] – para[0054], and para[0062]: The control part 11 determines whether or not the difference between the initial value and the reference value of the electrostatic capacitance is equal to or larger than a prescribed threshold value. When the control part 11 determines that the difference between the initial value and the reference value of the electrostatic capacitance is not equal to or larger than the threshold value, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value.).
Regarding Claim 21. Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
wherein the reference environment is free of any target, such that the reference measurement is an empty measurement (See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and para[0052] – para[0054]: Therefore, it is estimated that the user is not on the driver's seat, and that the steering wheel 2 is in the non-grasped state. Thus, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value and notification processing of the abnormality of the capacitive sensor 21 based on the initial value of the electrostatic capacitance at the time of starting acquisition of the detection value estimated as being in the non-grasped state.).
Regarding Claim 23. Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
wherein the reference measurement step is performed by applying a direct or alternating voltage to the at least one sensor (See para[0041]: The C/V conversion circuit applies, for example, the electrode 2a with an alternating voltage with a prescribed amplitude, and outputs an alternating voltage in accordance with the magnitude of the electrostatic capacitance to be coupled with the electrode 2a. The sensor circuit (not shown) in accordance with the capacitive sensor 21 detects the outputted voltage, and thereby detects the electrostatic capacitance coupled with the electrode 2a.).
Regarding Claim 24. Yamazaki teaches:
The calibrating method according to claim 23,
wherein the step of measuring the reference signal level is performed by measuring a voltage or current (See para[0041]: The C/V conversion circuit applies, for example, the electrode 2a with an alternating voltage with a prescribed amplitude, and outputs an alternating voltage in accordance with the magnitude of the electrostatic capacitance to be coupled with the electrode 2a. The sensor circuit (not shown) in accordance with the capacitive sensor 21 detects the outputted voltage, and thereby detects the electrostatic capacitance coupled with the electrode 2a.).
Regarding Claim 27. Yamazaki teaches:
A method for assisting in the driving of a vehicle comprising the vehicle steering wheel comprising the measuring device calibrated by means of the calibrating method according to claim 16,
the driving assistance method comprising a driving assistance step initiated by the electronic control unit based on a comparison between the detection signal from the at least one sensor (See para[0038] and para[0064] – para[0065: For example, the driving support ECU 6 is an ECU for executing processing in accordance with automated driving, and executes automated driving when the steering wheel 2 is in a non-grasped state, and executes manual driving when the steering wheel 2 is in a non-grasped state. When the control part 11 performs grasp determination of the steering wheel 2 in accordance with driving support, the control part 11 performs grasp determination based on the reference value (specified value) set at Step S18.) and:
the level of the reference signal (See Fig. 4, para[0043], and para[0064] – para[0065]: The control part 11 determines whether or not the steering wheel 2 is in a grasped state based on the difference between the detection value and the reference value. Specifically, the control part 11 performs determination by whether or not the difference between the detection value and the reference value is equal to or larger than a prescribed threshold value.), and/or
the adjusted detection threshold (See Fig. 4, para[0043], and para[0064] – para[0065]: The control part 11 determines whether or not the steering wheel 2 is in a grasped state based on the difference between the detection value and the reference value. Specifically, the control part 11 performs determination by whether or not the difference between the detection value and the reference value is equal to or larger than a prescribed threshold value.), and/or
the difference between the level of the reference signal and the initial threshold (Examiner note: Based on the recitation of “or” the limitation is interpreted as optional.).
Regarding Claim 28. Yamazaki teaches:
A method for verifying the vehicle steering wheel in a vehicle aftersale phase, the vehicle steering wheel comprising the measuring device calibrated by means of the calibrating method according to claim 16, comprising:
a reference measurement verification step, the vehicle steering wheel being placed in a reference environment(See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and para[0052] – para[0054]: Therefore, it is estimated that the user is not on the driver's seat, and that the steering wheel 2 is in the non-grasped state. Thus, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value and notification processing of the abnormality of the capacitive sensor 21 based on the initial value of the electrostatic capacitance at the time of starting acquisition of the detection value estimated as being in the non-grasped state.), and
a step of comparing the reference signal level measured by means of the calibrating method and by means of the verification method (See Fig. 4, para[0052] – para[0054], and para[0062]: The control part 11 determines whether or not the difference between the initial value and the reference value of the electrostatic capacitance is equal to or larger than a prescribed threshold value. When the control part 11 determines that the difference between the initial value and the reference value of the electrostatic capacitance is not equal to or larger than the threshold value, the control part 11 performs setting processing of the reference value.).
Regarding Claim 29. Yamazaki teaches:
The vehicle steering wheel comprising the measuring device with:
the measuring device being specially designed to implement the calibrating method according to claim 16 (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and para[0006]: a control device capable of calibrating the detection value of the sensor for detecting the contact with a steering wheel.).
Regarding Claim 30. Yamazaki teaches:
A motor vehicle comprising the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 29 (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and para[0024]: a vehicle, includes a capacitive sensor 21 for converting the contact with a steering wheel 2.).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20200290566 A1) and Lee (US 20190250767 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lakatos et al. (US 20190226879 A1).
Regarding Claim 22. Yamazaki is silent as to the language of:
The calibrating method according to claim 16,
wherein the reference measurement comprises additional steps, performed before or after a measurement with the target-free environment, of:
bringing a predetermined target in proximity to or in contact with the vehicle steering wheel, measuring the reference signal received by the acquisition unit, with the predetermined target in proximity to or in contact with the vehicle steering wheel.
Nevertheless Lakatos teaches:
bringing a predetermined target in proximity to or in contact with the vehicle steering wheel, measuring the reference signal received by the acquisition unit, with the predetermined target in proximity to or in contact with the vehicle steering wheel (See Fig. 14, para[0012], para[0016], and para[0092]: an active calibration mode. The active mode is used to measure changes in capacitance C.sub.hand due to a hand touching the steering wheel or capacitances related to other body parts.) (Examiner note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of “predetermined target” is interpreted to include hands.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki by bringing a predetermined target in proximity to or in contact with the vehicle steering wheel, measuring the reference signal received by the acquisition unit, with the predetermined target in proximity to or in contact with the vehicle steering wheel such as that of Lakatos. Lakatos teaches, “calculate the capacitance of the body part based on the first capacitance in the active measurement mode and the first capacitance in the active calibration mode” (See para[0018]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki, because measuring a signal when a predetermined target is in contact with the steering wheel would have helped to calculate the capacitance of a body part, as recognized by Lakatos.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20200290566 A1) and Lee (US 20190250767 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Laurent et al. (FR 3060505 A1).
Regarding Claim 25. Yamazaki is silent as to the language of:
A method for the mass production of a mass-produced vehicle steering wheel, comprising the calibrating method according to claim 16.
Nevertheless Laurent teaches:
A method for the mass production of a mass-produced vehicle steering wheel, comprising the calibrating method according to claim 16 (See Page 3, Page 5, : Determining or predetermining this minimum hand surface in the factory makes it possible to compare with the hand surface detected at an instant "t" in order to allow a reliable detection of the grip of the management member. The second step (E2) can be carried out in the factory.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki with a method for the mass production of a mass-produced vehicle steering wheel, comprising the calibrating method according to claim 16, for example before a phase of dispatching the vehicle steering wheel to be installed on a new vehicle such as that of Laurent. Laurent teaches, “Determining or predetermining this minimum hand surface in the factory makes it possible to compare with the hand surface detected at an instant "t" in order to allow a reliable detection of the grip of the management member” (See Page 3, paragraph 3). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki, because calibrating a sensor before installation would have helped to detect when a hand grips the steering wheel, as recognized by Laurent.
Regarding Claim 26. Yamazaki is silent as to the language of:
A method for the mass production of a motor vehicle comprising a mass-produced vehicle steering wheel, comprising the calibrating method according to claim 16, before a phase of dispatching a new vehicle.
Nevertheless Laurent teaches:
A method for the mass production of a motor vehicle comprising a mass-produced vehicle steering wheel, comprising the calibrating method according to claim 16, before a phase of dispatching a new vehicle (See Page 3, Page 5, : Determining or predetermining this minimum hand surface in the factory makes it possible to compare with the hand surface detected at an instant "t" in order to allow a reliable detection of the grip of the management member. The second step (E2) can be carried out in the factory.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki with a method for the mass production of a motor vehicle comprising a mass-produced vehicle steering wheel, comprising the calibrating method according to claim 16, for example before a phase of dispatching the new vehicle such as that of Laurent. Laurent teaches, “Determining or predetermining this minimum hand surface in the factory makes it possible to compare with the hand surface detected at an instant "t" in order to allow a reliable detection of the grip of the management member” (See Page 3, paragraph 3). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki, because calibrating a sensor before installation would have helped to detect when a hand grips the steering wheel, as recognized by Laurent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103,
Applicant argues that: To the contrary, Yamazaki takes whatever sensor output exists when certain conditions are met (e.g., door unlocked, no occupant, no steering wheel grasping) and sets that value as the new reference value. The reference level is not "known" or predetermined. It is merely the measured detection value at that time. By contrast, the "known reference environment" of the invention of claim 16 is calibrated, precise, and predictable rather than an incidental operational condition that varies as operation varies.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot 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.
Applicant argues that: In response, Applicant notes that Yamazaki never teaches or suggests adjusting or recalculating the threshold value as part of its methodology. Instead, the cited passage merely indicates that the specific threshold value mentioned (100 pF) is but an example rather than something that is required in order for the Yamazaki invention to work. Applicant is unable to find any teachings in Yamazaki indicating that the threshold value is intentionally modified during operation depending on the level of a measured reference signal, let alone intentionally so modified to initiate a driving assistance action, as required by claim 16.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “adjusting and recording in the non-volatile memory of the electronic control unit at least one initial threshold to be used by the electronic control unit to initiate a driving assistance action, depending on the level of the measured reference signal”) are not required in the rejected claim(s). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In particular, the recited limitation is an optional limitation as denoted by the use of “or” before and after the recited claim limitation. Accordingly the prior art rejection of claim 16 is maintained.
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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863