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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3 October 2025, the supplemental response filed on 9 October 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 26 August 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/26/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The provided JP reference listed under Foreign Patent Documents (Reference 1), is not in English and/or it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance in English or a written English-language translation of the reference or the Abstract is provided. Attached to the IDS is a document titled “Published Utility Model Gazette” that appears to be a partial translation of “Reference 1”; however, the document does not explicitly that it is a partial translation of Reference 1. Furthermore, the provided partial English translation does not indicated what pages or paragraph(s) that translation is in reference to. For example, translation of paragraph XXXX or page 5, lines X-Y. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 10/9/25 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) because: An instruction to replace the specification is missing. Applicant did not provide an explicit instruction to have the substitute specification replace the existing specification. 2) A substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(b) must be accompanied by a statement indicating that no new matter was included. The Examiner was unable to find a statement of such within Applicant’s response. Therefore, this substitute specification was not entered for these reasons.
The substitute specification filed 10/3/25 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) because: An instruction to replace the specification is missing. Applicant did not provide an explicit instruction to have the substitute specification replace the existing specification. 2) A substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(b) must be accompanied by a statement indicating that no new matter was included. The Examiner was unable to find a statement of such within Applicant’s response. In addition, the substitute specification removes paragraph indicator “0054” and replaces it with “00A” resulting in no paragraph 0054 existing in the substitute specification. Therefore, this substitute specification was not entered for these reasons.
Because the substitute specification (i.e. amendments to the specification) filed on 10/3/25 was entered, the amendment to the abstract is not also not entered since the amendments are not entered in part. Therefore:
The disclosure remains objected to because of the following informalities: Page 9 of Applicant’s specification states “(see Fig. 2)” which indicates that a FIG. 2 is presented in applicant’s disclosure. However, FIG. 2 itself does not exist. Only FIG 2A and FIG 2B exist. Therefore, Applicant’s specification recites a FIGURE not presented.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 10/3/25 and 10/9/25 have been accepted and entered.
However, the drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "12" and "50" have both been used to designate a vehicle; reference characters "20" and "24" have both been used to designate a display unit; reference characters "10" and "30" have both been used to designate a turn lever (the figures show 10 and 30 pointing to the same object. It is unclear based on the drawings what is considered a “lever switch” and a “turn signal”); reference characters "42" and "42A" have both been used to designate a recess (the figures show 42 and 42A pointing to the same object/line. It is unclear based on the drawings what is considered a “recess ” and a “guide surface”); reference characters "10" and "102" have both been used to designate a vehicle; reference characters "100" and "102" have both been used to designate a lever switch (100 and 102 pointing to the same object in FIG 9) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: RH. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “52” has been used to designate both “display control device” and ECU. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindgren et al (EP2537700A1, disclosed in IDS filed 10/29/24) .
As per independent claim 1, Lindgren et al discloses a lever switch comprising:
a lever switch main body configured to be disposed at a front side, in a front-rear direction of a vehicle, relative to a steering wheel that steers the vehicle; (FIG 1; 0028)
a switching portion that is provided at the lever switch main body and, in response to a touch by a vehicle occupant without the lever switch main body being moved, switches a mode of a light of the vehicle. (FIG 1; 0029-0032: based on a touch on the touch sensing device, a light can be turned off, on, etc.)
a permission switch wherein: a permission switch is configured to permit sensing by the touch sensor (FIG 1; 0031: a second touch sensor on second side. This second side must be touched in order to trigger the occurrence of selecting a mode using the first touch sensor on the first side. Form of a permission switch)
the switching portion is configured to include a touch sensor capable of sensing the touch by the vehicle occupant. (FIG 1; 0029, 0031: touch sensing device)
in a state in which the permission switch and the touch sensor are touched within a predetermined time by the vehicle occupant, the touch of the touch sensor by the vehicle occupant is configured to be sensed. (FIG 1; 0031: the driver places his or her thumb on the section of the thumbwheel 8 available on the first side 9 (touch sensor), and an opposite finger, e.g. the index finger, on the section of the thumbwheel 8 available on the second side 10 (form of permission switch) wherein both sensors are touched at the same time (form of touched within a predetermined time). This ensures the touching of the touch sensor to trigger the occurrence of selecting a mode was intended and not a mistake by the driver)
As per dependent claim 3, Lindgren et al discloses wherein the switching portion is configured to be capable of switching the mode in accordance with a direction of tracing on the touch sensor by the vehicle occupant. (0032-0033; FIG 1: scrolls in direction based on the direction of trace by the user)
As per dependent claim 5, Lindgren et al discloses wherein the sensing by the touch sensor is permitted by touches by the vehicle occupant on the permission switch and the touch sensor. (0028-0029, 0031: user selects the front side and the second side of the control device where each side has touch sensors)
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Lindgren et al discloses the touch sensor is provided at one side face of the lever switch main body, and the permission switch is provided at another side face of the lever switch main body that is disposed at an opposite side of the lever switch main body from the touch sensor. (0028-0029, 0031: control device has a first side and second side. First side is facing the driver, second side facing away from the driver. This second side must be touched in order to trigger the occurrence of selecting a mode using the first touch sensor on the first side. Form of a permission switch)
As per dependent claim 8, Lindgren et al discloses wherein the lever switch main body is formed in a cuboid shape (FIG 1: similar to the shape shown in FIG 1 of Applicant’s drawings )
As per independent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Lindgren et al discloses:
the lever switch according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1. The rejection and rationale are incorporated into this portion of the rejection)
a display unit that displays the mode of the light of the vehicle; (FIG 1; 0028, 0032: display unit )
a display control section that causes the display unit to display an image corresponding to the mode (FIG 1; 0032-0033: displays available options/mode along with the selected mode/option)
As per independent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in Claim 10 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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) 7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over , Lindgren et al in further view of Kaiser et al (US 20140375584, 2014)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a recess portion is formed at the lever switch main body, the recess portion being recessed from the other side face toward the one side face of the lever switch main body, and the permission switch is provided in the recess portion. However, Kaiser et al discloses an actuation lever, positioned relative to the steering wheel, having an end piece comprising a number of structural elements placed around its circumference. (0050) In addition, each of the structural elements are associated with a touch sensor element wherein each structural element is overlapping its corresponding touch sensor element. (0050) Each of the structural/sensor elements are evenly spaced around the circumference of the end piece (FIG 2, 0046) wherein any number of structural elements can be placed (0048) Each of the structural elements are designed as indentations. (0050)A skilled artisan understands that indentations are recess portions on the surface. Thus, each structural/sensor element on the end piece are recess portions having touch sensors. Furthermore, FIG 2 shows an example of structural/sensor elements are positioned around the circumference where there appears to be at least 4 structural/sensor elements. A structural/sensor element can visually be seen at the top, in front, and at the bottom. A skilled artisan will have realized there is at least a 4th structured element on the end piece that is visually hidden based on that the elements are placed all around the circumference and equally spaced. (as explained in 0046). Thus, there is a structure element that on the other side of the lever facing away from the driver. In addition, each touch sensor element is associated with a functionality (0020)Therefore, Kaiser discloses a recessed designed structural element (recessed portion) on the end of an actuation lever where in the structural element being recessed from the other side face toward the one side face of the lever switch main body; therefore hidden from the driver. In addition, a form of permission switch is in the hidden recessed designed structural element since it comprises a touch sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lindgren et al’s “permission switch” on the back side of a lever with Kaiser’s hidden recessed structural sensored element since it would have the benefit of the driver or the user can feel out the fixedly predefined touch points with his hand without having to look at the actuation lever which would increase the safety of the driver while driving. (0015,0024)
Therefore, in conjunction of Kaiser’s recessed structural touch sensored element with Lindgren et al’s “permission switch” on the back side of a lever, the combination of the cited art teaches a recess portion is formed at the lever switch main body, the recess portion being recessed from the other side face toward the one side face of the lever switch main body, and the permission switch is provided in the recess portion.
Claim(s) 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al in further view of Howie et al (US20100101921, 2010)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the lever switch main body is configured to be disposed at a distal end portion of a turn lever that is displaced by the vehicle occupant from a neutral position to an indicating position at a time of changing a progress direction of the vehicle while the vehicle is running. However, Howie et al discloses touch switch turn signal activation stalk mounted to the steering column movable between a neutral position and either a left turn position and a right turn position. (0018) When the activation stalk is forced downward to the LEFT-ON position, left side lamps start flashing indicating a left turn. When the activation stalk is forced upward to the RIGHT-ON position, right side lamps start flashing indicating a right turn. (0024)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lindgren et al’s lever with the disclosed stalk of Howie et al since it would have provided the benefit of easily and intuitively communicate a driver’s intention to turn or change lanes to other drivers on the road by visually signaling with flashing lights, thus helping to prevent accidents by alerting them to the driver’s planned maneuver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments to the objection of the drawings, since the Applicant relied on the amendment to the specification to address a number of issues within the objection of the drawings, which was not enter, the objection to the drawings remains also. The Examiner respectfully direct the Applicant to the objection explained above for the reasons why the drawings remain objected. Furthermore, the replacement drawings did overcome the issue with reference characters "52" and "54" have both been used to designate a ECU. However, the replacement drawings did not correct the issues with reference characters “10” and “30”, “42” and 42A”, and “100” and “102”. The Examiner respectfully states reference characters "10" and "30" have both been used to designate a turn lever (the figures show 10 and 30 pointing to the same object. It is unclear based on the drawings what is considered a “lever switch” and a “turn signal”); reference characters "42" and "42A" have both been used to designate a recess (the figures show 42 and 42A pointing to the same object/line. It is unclear based on the drawings what is considered a “recess ” and a “guide surface”); reference characters "10" and "102" have both been used to designate a vehicle; reference characters "100" and "102" have both been used to designate a lever switch (100 and 102 pointing to the same object in FIG 9). Thus, the objection to the drawings still remain.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the abstract, since the substitute specification (amendment to the specification) filed on 10/3/25 was not entered, the amendment to the abstract is not also not entered since the amendments to the specification overall are not entered in part. The Examiner respectfully states that the current abstract (or non-entered replacement abstract) is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, The Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that removing “configured to be” would not place the abstract into narrative form. Thus, the objection to the specification/abstract remains.
On pages 8-9, in regards to the independent claim 1 rejected under 35 USC 102, the Applicant argues Claim 1 is amended to include the limitations of claims 2 and 4 (which are canceled without prejudice), and features described in [0049], [0050], and [0053]. Applicant argues that Lindgren et al discloses in the paragraph [0031] that "[t]hereby, the driver touches two separate sections of the touch sensing device 7 simultaneously, thus triggering said touch occurrence" and that amended claim 1 that the touch sensor of the switching portion and the permission switch are touched simultaneously by the vehicle occupants in order to sense a touch of the touch sensor by the vehicle occupant. In other words, it appears that Applicant is arguing that Lindgren et al does not teach “in a state in which the permission switch and the touch sensor are touched within a predetermined time by the vehicle occupant, the touch of the touch sensor by the vehicle occupant is configured to be sensed.” However, the Examiner disagrees.
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., features described in [0049], [0050], and [0053]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In other words, features described in [0049], [0050], and [0053] of Applicant’s specification that not explicitly recited in the limitations are not read into the claims or considered by the Examiner.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that the language “in a state in which the permission switch and the touch sensor are touched within a predetermined time by the vehicle occupant” is broad. The Examiner respectfully states that the term “predetermined time” is not defined or limited in anyway. In other words, the language is silent on how exactly to properly interpreted the term “predetermined time”. The language does not prevent “predetermined degree” to be any set particular amount of time or time period. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not define the term “predetermined time” either. In fact, Applicant’s specification does not use or recite the term “predetermined time” at all. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, the predetermined time could be viewed as open-ended and/or open to interpretation by the Examiner under BRI. Therefore, this does not prevent both the permission switch and the touch sensor from being pressed simultaneously as argued by the Applicant.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant's claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references is considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation to that which is claimed discussed below.
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of the limitations, Lindgren et al teaches the subject matter of in a state in which the permission switch and the touch sensor are touched within a predetermined time by the vehicle occupant, the touch of the touch sensor by the vehicle occupant is configured to be sensed. (FIG 1; 0031: the driver places his or her thumb on the section of the thumbwheel 8 available on the first side 9 (touch sensor), and an opposite finger, e.g. the index finger, on the section of the thumbwheel 8 available on the second side 10 (form of permission switch) wherein both sensors are touched at the same time (form of touched within a predetermined time) for the touch occurrence to trigger a light mode setting to change/be selected. This ensures the touching of the touch sensor to trigger the occurrence of selecting a mode was intended and not a mistake by the driver)
Thus, Lindgren et al teaches the argued limitation(s).
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172