Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/262,487

TOUCH PANEL SWITCH SYSTEM AND STEERING WHEEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Autoliv Development AB
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
769 granted / 990 resolved
+9.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1023
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§102
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 990 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered. 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. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. [Feng hereinafter, CN211995446] in view of Lisseman et al. [Lisseman hereinafter, US 2018/0194369]. In regard to claims 1 and 10, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] a touch panel switch system for a steering wheel, characterized by comprising an upper assembly [1], a lower assembly [2], and a suspension assembly [202] ;the upper assembly comprising a top cover [13] and an inner support [11], the top cover and the inner support being fixedly connected to each other; the lower assembly comprising a housing [20] and a bottom cover [21], the top cover and the housing being movably connected to each other, the housing being fixedly connected to the bottom cover; and the suspension assembly being connected between the upper assembly and the lower assembly, the suspension assembly effecting a trigger stroke in a Z direction between the upper assembly [1] and the lower assembly [2], wherein the trigger stroke corresponds to a displacement of the upper assembly [1] relative to the lower assembly [2] that is configured to be converted into an input of a force value. Feng does not disclose a trigger stroke being at micron scale. Lisseman teaches [in Fig. 8] a trigger stroke being at micron scale [measured by 140]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a trigger stroke at micron scale in order to actuate the system as desired. In regard to claim 2, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the touch panel switch system according to claim 1, wherein the lower assembly further comprises a printed circuit board [3] provided between the inner support and the bottom cover; a pressure sensor [5] being mounted on the printed circuit board; and a mounting column [114] extending downwards from the inner support, and being used to press the pressure sensor. Feng does not disclose a micron-scale pressure sensor. Lisseman teaches [in Fig. 8] a micron-scale pressure sensor [140]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a micron-scale pressure sensor in order to actuate the system as desired. In regard to claim 4, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the touch panel switch system according to claim 1, wherein the suspension assembly is mounted between the inner support and the housing. In regard to claims 5 and 7, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the touch panel switch system according to claim 4, wherein the suspension assembly comprises an elastic member [202c] and an elastic jaw [202d], the elastic jaw extending downwards from a lower surface of the inner support, and the elastic member being connected between the elastic jaw and the housing, wherein the elastic jaw (34) comprises an inverted mushroom head structure, and the shape of the elastic member matches the shape of the mushroom head structure. In regard to claims 8 and 9, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the touch panel switch system according to claim 4 , wherein the suspension assembly comprises a first elastic holding member [202e], a second elastic holding member [202f], and an elastic member [202b], the first elastic holding member being connected to the inner support, the second elastic holding member being connected to the housing, and the elastic member being connected between the first elastic holding member and the second elastic holding member. Feng does not disclose that the elastic member is made of solid rubber or hollow rubber. Lisseman teaches [in par. 0111] that the elastic member is made of rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rubber elastic member, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 In regard to claims 11 and 13, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the steering wheel according to claim 10, wherein the lower assembly further comprises a printed circuit board [3] provided between the inner support and the bottom cover; a pressure sensor [5] being mounted on the printed circuit board; and a mounting column [114] extending downwards from the inner support, and being used to press the pressure sensor, wherein the suspension assembly is mounted between the inner support and the housing. Feng does not disclose a micron-scale pressure sensor. Lisseman teaches [in Fig. 8] a micron-scale pressure sensor [140]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a micron-scale pressure sensor in order to actuate the system as desired. In regard to claims 14 and 16, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the steering wheel according to claim 13, wherein the suspension assembly comprises an elastic member [202c] and an elastic jaw [202d], the elastic jaw extending downwards from a lower surface of the inner support, and the elastic member being connected between the elastic jaw and the housing, wherein the elastic jaw comprises an inverted mushroom head structure, and the shape of the elastic member matches the shape of the mushroom head structure. In regard to claims 17 and 18, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the steering wheel according to claim 13, wherein the suspension assembly comprises a first elastic holding member [202e], a second elastic holding member [202f], and an elastic member [202b], the first elastic holding member being connected to the inner support, the second elastic holding member being connected to the housing, and the elastic member being connected between the first elastic holding member and the second elastic holding member. Feng does not disclose that the elastic member is made of solid rubber or hollow rubber. Lisseman teaches [in par. 0111] that the elastic member is made of rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rubber elastic member, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 In regard to claim 19, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the touch panel switch system according to claim 1, wherein the trigger stroke comprises a controlled displacement of the upper assembly [1] relative to the lower assembly [2] effected by the suspension assembly [202]. In regard to claim 20, Feng discloses [in Figs. 1-10] the touch panel switch system according to claim 1, wherein the trigger stroke is configured such that the displacement of the upper assembly [1] relative to the lower assembly [2] is converted into the force value. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6, 12 and 15 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to amended claim 1 and with respect to Feng and Lisseman, Applicant argues that “The cited combination of Feng and Lisseman would, at most, yield a system in which a user applies force to a panel, and the resulting force (and possibly associated displacement) is detected with high sensitivity. However, the combination does not teach or suggest configuring a suspension assembly to effect a trigger stroke that is used as an input and converted into a force value. In Feng, displacement results from applied force. In Lisseman, force is directly sensed and processed. Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a system in which displacement between assemblies is used to generate the force input.” It is noted that amended claim 1 recites that “the trigger stroke corresponds to a displacement of the upper assembly relative to the lower assembly that is configured to be converted into an input of a force value.” It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. In regard to claim 19, Applicant argues that “Feng does not disclose that the displacement is controlled or governed by the suspension structure itself. Instead, the extent of displacement varies with user-applied force and is not defined as a controlled displacement effected by the suspension assembly. Lisseman does not remedy this deficiency. Lisseman is directed to detecting force inputs and does not disclose or suggest a suspension assembly that effects a controlled displacement between assemblies. However, “control” is defined as “to exercise restraining or directing influence over” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control]. Feng clearly discloses that the suspension assembly directs influence over and controls the displacement of the upper assembly relative to the lower assembly. In regard to claim 20, Applicant argues that “Feng discloses that pressing the panel results in elastic deformation, which in turn causes a force to be applied to a pressure sensor. However, Feng does not disclose that the displacement itself is converted into the force value. Rather, the applied force causes both the deformation and the resulting sensor output. Similarly, Lisseman discloses detecting force applied to a surface and processing that force to determine a touch event. Lisseman treats force as the input signal and does not disclose converting a displacement into a force value. By contrast, claim 20 requires that the displacement associated with the trigger stroke is configured such that it is converted into the force value, thereby establishing a different causal relationship between displacement and force than in the cited references. Accordingly, the cited combination does not teach or suggest converting displacement into a force value as required by claim 20.” However, it is noted that new claim 20 recites that “the trigger stroke is configured such that the displacement of the upper assembly relative to the lower assembly is converted into the force value.” Similarly to claim 1 above, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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. /LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 18, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603237
PUSH BUTTON FOR ACTUATING SWITCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597571
BUTTON APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592351
PYROTECHNIC CIRCUIT BREAKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586740
STACK KEY STRUCTURE AND BALANCE-SHAFT SEAT THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578802
ELECTRICAL KEY SUPPORT MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 990 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month