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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onaka (US20110062010).
Regarding claim 1, Onaka teaches an operation control device comprising:a memory; and a processor connected to the memory (memory is inherently present in the processing device 13, which stores and tracks timing data and disablement target numbers, see paragraphs 62-66), the processor being configured to: in a case in which the processor receives, at an operation unit that includes a first operation region 11 and a second operation region 12 adjacent to the first operation region, an operation performed on the first operation region in a direction of the second operation region (rotation of switch 11a in the direction of switch 12a or 12b is, and the direction is detected, see paragraphs 32, 60), limit execution of processes corresponding to operations performed on the second operation region (the push switch corresponding to the rotation direction (12a or 12b) is disabled, see paragraphs 33, 51, 78) until the processor detects that no operation is performed on the second operation region (in step 08, it checks if a second switch is operated see paragraph 69, and in step 09, the controller checks whether the second switch is being operated and which one, see Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-74).
Regarding claim 2, Onaka teaches the operation control device wherein the processor is configured not to limit execution of processes corresponding to operations performed on the second operation region 12 in a case in which the processor receives an operation performed on the first operation region 11 in a direction other than the direction of the second operation region (only the switch in the direction of rotation 12a or 12b is disabled, while other switches 12c or opposite-direction push are not affected (see paragraphs 51, 60-76).
Regarding claim 3, Onaka teaches the operation control device wherein the first operation region comprises a wheel switch 11, and the processor is configured to limit execution of processes corresponding to operations performed on the second operation region 12 in a case in which the processor receives a rotational operation with respect to the wheel switch in the direction of the second operation region (the rotational operation direction is detected, and corresponding push switch is disabled, see paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 4, Onaka teaches the operation control device wherein the processor is configured not to limit execution of processes corresponding to operations performed on the second operation region in a case in which the processor receives at least one of a rotational operation with respect to the wheel switch in the opposite direction of the direction of the second operation region or a push operation on the wheel switch (When wheel switch is rotated in opposite direction, only the corresponding push switch is disabled , not the opposite, see paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 8, Onaka teaches an operation device comprising the operation control device of claim 1 (paragraph 19, 27).
Regarding claim 9, Onaka teaches a steering device comprising:a steering wheel 31 that comprises the operation unit; and the operation device of claim 8 (paragraph 22, 25).
Regarding claim 10, Onaka teaches a vehicle comprising the steering device of claim 9 (paragraph 19, 22).
Regarding claim 11, Onaka teaches an operation control method comprising :in a case in which an operation unit that includes a first operation region 11 and a second operation region 12 adjacent to the first operation region receives an operation performed on the first operation region in a direction of the second operation region (rotation of switch 11a in the direction of switch 12a or 12b is, and the direction is detected, see paragraphs 32, 60), limiting execution of processes corresponding to operations performed on the second operation region (the push switch corresponding to the rotation direction (12a or 12b) is disabled, see paragraphs 33, 51, 78) until it is detected that no operation is performed on the second operation region (in step 08, it checks if a second switch is operated see paragraph 69, and in step 09, the controller checks whether the second switch is being operated and which one, see Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-74).
Regarding claim 12, Onaka teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute an operation control process, the operation control process comprising: in a case in which an operation unit that includes a first operation region 11 and a second operation region 12 adjacent to the first operation region receives an operation performed on the first operation region in a direction of the second operation region (rotation of switch 11a in the direction of switch 12a or 12b is, and the direction is detected, see paragraphs 32, 60), limiting execution of processes corresponding to operations performed on the second operation region (the push switch corresponding to the rotation direction (12a or 12b) is disabled, see paragraphs 33, 51, 78) until it is detected that no operation is performed on the second operation region (in step 08, it checks if a second switch is operated see paragraph 69, and in step 09, the controller checks whether the second switch is being operated and which one, see Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-74).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Onaka fails to teach or suggest limiting execution of processes corresponding to operation performed on the second operation region until the processor determines that no operation is performed on the second operation region as now recited in claim 1”. However, the examiner cannot concur. Onaka logic checking the second switch for activity and only allowing execution when no second-switch input is detected during the disablement period. In step 08, it check if a second switch is operated, see paragraph 69; and in step 09, the controller checks whether the second switch is being operated and which one. As shown, Onaka’s logic is considered functionally equivalent to “detecting that no operation is performed on the second operation region”.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TOMIYAMA teaches a similar an operation control device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M SAEED whose telephone number is (571)270-7976. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8pm.
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.
/AHMED M SAEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833