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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 21, 2026 has been entered. Accordingly, claim 4 is cancelled; claims 1-3 and 5-13 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
With that being said, a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation), is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is common and consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. Therefore, it is noted that:
“a fabric”, is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is common and consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach, as “a flexible substrate”.
“a circuit trace”, is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is common and consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach, as “a conductive pad”.
“conductive ink” and “conductive ink layer”, are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, which is common and consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach, as “a conductive liquid” and “a conductive material”, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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.
There are two separate requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. 112:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
With regard to claim 1, there is a lack of antecedent basis with the limitation “the fabric” as it has never been defined before its first appearance.
With regard to claims 2, 3 and 5-12, these claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependencies from the base claim.
With regard to claim 13, there is a lack of antecedent basis with the limitation “the clear or opaque conductive ink” as it has never been defined before its first appearance. It appears that “the clear or opaque conductive ink” should be replaced with --the translucent or opaque conductive ink--, or vice versa.
The essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Therefore, the uncertainties of claim scope should be removed as much as possible.
For examining purposes, this application will be examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yairi et al. (US 2014/0160063 A1).
Yairi et al. teaches a user interface comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
584
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
508
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
730
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, a control system (FIG. 1A and 1B, user interface 100) of a vehicle comprising: a user interface component (FIG. 1A and 1B, user interface 100) configured on a user-accessible portion (automotive console) of the vehicle (Paragraph: [0033]).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, a control system (FIG. 1A and 1B, user interface 100) comprising: a circuit system (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111) configured onto the user interface (FIG. 1A and 1B, user interface 100), wherein the circuit system (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111) comprises a circuit trace (electrodes or surface conductive pads) fabricated of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111) formed onto a flexible substrate (FIG. 1A and 1B, tactile layer 110) affixed to the user interface component (FIG. 1A and 1B, user interface 100) by adhering, printing or embedding (patterned) the clear or opaque conductive ink (such as indium tin oxide ITO, copper, micron or nano-wire or transparent) onto or into the fabric (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111); at least one capacitive sensor (FIGS. 25 and 29 in view of FIG. 1A, sensor 140) in electrical connection with the circuit system (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111) via the circuit trace (electrodes or surface conductive pads) (electrodes or surface conductive pads), wherein the capacitive sensor (FIGS. 25 and 29 in view of FIG. 1A, sensor 140) is actuated by user contact (FIG. 1B, finger or stylus on the touch surface 111); and a controller (FIG. 25 in view of FIG. 1A, processor 160) in electrical connection with the circuit system (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111) and operable by the at least one capacitive sensor (FIGS. 25 and 29 in view of FIG. 1A, sensor 140) to regulate the operation of an electrical component (For more details, please read the Abstract; paragraphs: [0033], [0049]-[0061], [0087], [0091]-[0093] and [0100]-[0125]).
With regard to claim 3, the at least one capacitive sensor (FIGS. 25 and 29 in view of FIG. 1A, sensor 140) comprises a plurality of capacitive sensors (a group of sensor elements) of the user interface component (FIG. 1A and 1B, user interface 100) for regulating respective operations of a respective plurality of electrical components (“capacitance sensor 140 can function in any other way: additionally or alternatively comprises a pressure sensor, flow sensor, strain sensor and/or resistive sensor”) (Paragraphs: [0032], [0049], [0065] and [0074]).
With regard to claim 12, the flexible substrate (FIG. 1A and 1B, tactile layer 110) is a vehicle interior material selected from at least one of fabric, thermoplastic olefin, or leather (Paragraphs: [0036]-[0037] and [0074]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wasson et al. (US 10,201,295 B2).
Wasson et al. teaches a body-mountable device comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
736
958
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
688
532
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, a control circuit (FIG. 3, body-mountable sensor platform 300) comprising: a circuit system (FIG. 3, flexible substrate 330) comprising a circuit trace (FIG. 3, metal traces, electrodes and/or other interconnects between components formed on the flexible substrate 330 of the device 300) formed of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer (for example, gold, platinum, palladium, titanium, carbon, aluminum, copper, silver, silver-chloride, conductors formed from noble materials, metals, combinations of these, etc.) formed onto a fabric (FIG. 3, flexible substrate 330) by adhering, printing or embedding the clear or opaque conductive ink (such as indium tin oxide ITO, copper, micron or nano-wire or transparent) onto or into the fabric; a capacitive sensor (FIG. 3, input component 310) in electrical connection with the circuit system (FIG. 3, flexible substrate 330) via the circuit trace (FIG. 3, metal traces, electrodes and/or other interconnects between components formed on the flexible substrate 330 of the device 300), wherein the capacitive sensor (FIG. 3, input component 310) is actuated by user contact (single touch, multiple touches, gestures, swipes, or other inputs); and a controller (FIG. 3, electronics 350 including a microcontroller) in electrical connection with the circuit system (FIG. 3, flexible substrate 330) and operable by the capacitive sensor (FIG. 3, input component 310) to regulate the operation of an electrical component (FIG. 3, one or both of the sensors 362 and 355) (For more details, please read: Abstract; from column 19, line 66 to column 30, line 3; and from column 33, line 44 to column 35, line 62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yairi et al. in view of Curtis et al. (CN 104995840 A).
Yairi et al. teaches all as discussed above including that the user-accessible portion (automotive console in paragraph [0033]), the at least one capacitive sensor (FIGS. 25 and 29 in view of FIG. 1A, sensor 140, wherein “capacitance sensor 140 can function in any other way: additionally or alternatively comprises a pressure sensor, flow sensor, strain sensor and/or resistive sensor”) and the circuit system (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111), but it does not explicitly teach the following features:
The user-accessible portion comprises a vehicle arm rest, and wherein the circuit system is formed onto the arm rest.
At least one light emitting diode (LED) for illuminating the capacitive sensor to indicate actuation by user contact.
A vehicle HVAC system such that the at least one capacitive sensor is configured to direct the controller to raise or lower a temperature of air emitted inside the vehicle.
A vehicle power window system such that the at least one capacitive sensor is configured to direct the controller to raise or lower a window inside the vehicle.
A vehicle audio system such that the at least one capacitive sensor is configured to direct the controller to raise or lower a volume of sound emitted inside the vehicle.
A glovebox closure such that the at least one capacitive sensor is configured to direct the controller to open the glovebox closure.
A vehicle seat position system such that the at least one capacitive sensor is configured to direct the controller to displace a position of a seat inside the vehicle.
It is noted that:
With regard to claim 2, Yairi et al. teaches an automotive console (Paragraph: [0033]), which serves as a central hub for driver and passenger convenience and control. Consoles are designed to improve the driving experience by providing easy access to essential items and controls. It is well-known that common features often include infotainment and vehicle controls, climate controls, gear shifter, power outlets/USB ports, armrest, etc. Therefore, the user-accessible portion (automotive console in paragraph [0033]) comprises a vehicle arm rest, and wherein the circuit system (FIG. 1A and 1B, touch surface 111) is formed onto the arm rest.
Curtis et al. teaches a physical force capacitive touch sensor comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
528
748
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
379
408
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
431
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 5, a capacitive sensor (touch or gesture position-lighted capacitive touch slider in FIG. 11, or capacitive touch key, a slider and/or a pad in FIG. 17) comprises at least one light emitting diode (LED) (FIG. 11, LED 1118, or FIG. 17, LED 1746) for illuminating the capacitive sensor to indicate actuation by user contact (“for indicating key or button has been pressed”) (Paragraphs: [0015], [0064]-[0068], [0094], [0110]-[0112]; and claim 5).
With regard to claim 6, an electrical component (light source) comprises at least light emitting diode (LED) (FIG. 11, LED 1118, or FIG. 17, LED 1746), the operation of which is regulated by the controller (FIG. 4, microcontroller or digital processor 406).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Yairi et al. to utilize at least one light emitting diode (LED) for illuminating the capacitive sensor to indicate actuation by user contact as taught by Curtis et al. since Curtis et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide backlight illumination of keys or buttons for indicating key or button that has been pressed, for example, visual feedback, and/or improved visibility in poor lighting conditions as disclosed in the paragraph [0064].
With regard to claims 7-11, each claim recites a result of a function of the controller operable by the at least one capacitive sensor to regulate the operation of an electrical component. It is clearly seen in paragraph [0033], Yairi et al. teaches that the user interface 100 can be applied over a display (e.g., a touchscreen), which is integrated into electrical components (such as a smartphone, cellular phone, tablet, laptop computer, desktop computer, personal data assistant (PDA), a personal music player, an automotive console, a television, a camera, a watch, etc.) to provide tactile guidance and to capture inputs. Therefore, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the user interface of Yairi et al. to electrical components as recited in claims 7-11 to capture inputs for the controller (FIG. 25 in view of FIG. 1A, processor 160) to perform the functions as recited in claims 7-11 to regulate the operation of the recited electrical components.
In addition, claims 7-11 are directed to an apparatus whose features are recited functionally. Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone (See MPEP 2114). It has been held in the USPTO and EPO that an apparatus “configured to” perform a function has to be interpreted as meaning an apparatus set up to do something and not necessarily being an apparatus which actually does something. 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 Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Therefore, a claim which has to be considered as being “configured to” carry out method steps, is not actually carrying out those method steps, and therefore, the unperformed method steps do not form part of the claim limitation in actuality. Therefore, as Yairi et al. teaches the claimed structure, the limitation is met. The controller (FIG. 25 in view of FIG. 1A, processor 160) in combination with the user interface 100 and the at least one capacitive sensor (FIGS. 25 and 29 in view of FIG. 1A, sensor 140) is fully capable of performing functions as recited in claims 7-11, respectively (For more details, please read the Abstract; paragraphs: [0033], [0049]-[0061], [0087], [0091]-[0093] and [0100]-[0125]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office’s position is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitations at issue as discussed above.
In response to applicants' arguments at pages 5 and 6 against “Yairi does not teach or suggest a circuit trace fabricated of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer that is formed onto a flexible substrate or fabric by adhering, printing, or embedding a conductive ink onto or into the fabric” as mentioned in the first paragraph at page 5 of the Remarks, the Examiner disagrees.
As clearly discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above, the Examiner equated the conductive pad and tactile layer 110 of Yairi et al.’s sensor to the claimed circuit trace and flexible substrate, respectively.
Yairi et al. explicitly discloses that “the tactile layer 110 can be optically transparent or translucent such that an image output from the display 150 can be communicated through the tactile layer 110 to a user” (paragraph [0037]), “conductive pads (e.g., the first conductor) of the sensor 140… can include any type of conductive material (or conductive fluid)” (paragraph [0053]), and “the first conductor can be arranged in any suitable location within or adjacent the cavity 125, the substrate 118, or the tactile layer 110” (paragraph [0054]), and “additionally or alternatively, all or a portion of the sensor 140 (e.g., electrodes for the sensor 140 that is a capacitive sensor) can be etched, printed, or otherwise fabricated directly on or within the tactile layer 110 or the substrate 118” (Paragraph [0074]) (emphasis added).
In brief, Yairi et al. clearly reads on the limitation, “a circuit trace fabricated of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer that is formed onto a flexible substrate or fabric by adhering, printing, or embedding a conductive ink onto or into the fabric” as argued above and recited in the proposed amendments of claims 1 and 13.
In response to applicants' arguments at pages 6 and 7 against “For the reasons set forth above, amended Claim 13 recites ‘a circuit system comprising a circuit trace formed of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer formed onto a fabric by adhering, printing, or embedding the clear or opaque conductive ink onto or into the fabric.’ Wasson fails to disclose these limitations” as mentioned in the second paragraph at page 6 of the Remarks, the Examiner disagrees.
Firstly, as clearly discussed in the rejection of claim 13, the Examiner equated the metal trace and flexible substrate 330 of Wasson et al.’s sensor to the claimed circuit trace and fabric, respectively.
Secondly, Wasson et al. explicitly discloses that “the flexible substrate 330 could be composed of polyimide or some other flexible polymeric or other material”, and “for example, elements (e.g., electronics 350, input components 310, output components 320, substrate sensor 355) could include or be composed of flexible polymers, flexible metal films, traces, and/or electrodes (e.g., metal traces or electrodes formed on the flexible substrate 330), or other flexible materials and/or materials formed to be flexible” (Column 20, lines 25-27; column 20, lines 33-38; and column 20, lines 44-50). It is clear in these cited passages, Wasson et al. explicitly teaches flexible substrate 330 could be composed of other material, which implicitly include a fabric, one of well-known and commercially available flexible substrate. It is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that a flexible polymeric material is also an example of fabrics, particularly in the context of synthetic textiles, nonwovens, and modern technical materials. Flexible polymers are the fundamental building blocks of most synthetic fabrics, processed into a fibrous, woven, knitted, or non-woven structure. in addition, the feature, a fabric within the ordinary meaning of that term is a woven, knitted, or nonwoven textile composed of fibers or yarns, is not recited in the rejected claims 1 , 4 and 13.
Thirdly, Wasson et al. explicitly discloses that “the composition of the flexible substrate 330 could be specified such that metal contacts, traces, and interconnects can be patterned directly on the surface of the flexible substrate 330 (e.g., by sputtering, CVD, or some other deposition process) and/or on a coating or layer formed on one or more surfaces of the flexible substrate 330”, and “for example, elements (e.g., electronics 350, input components 310, output components 320, substrate sensor 355) could include or be composed of flexible polymers, flexible metal films, traces, and/or electrodes (e.g., metal traces or electrodes formed on the flexible substrate 330), or other flexible materials and/or materials formed to be flexible” (Column 20, lines 25-27; column 20, lines 33-38; and column 20, lines 44-50), “Electrical interconnects (e.g., traces), antennas, and/or conductive electrodes (e.g., for an electrochemical analyte sensor, etc.) can be formed from conductive materials patterned on the flexible substrate 330 by a process for precisely patterning such materials, such as deposition, lithography, etc. The conductive materials patterned on the flexible substrate 330 can be, for example, gold, platinum, palladium, titanium, carbon, aluminum, copper, silver, silver-chloride, conductors formed from noble materials, metals, combinations of these, etc.” (Column 21, lines 6-15), and “for example, the sensor probe 360 could include optical fiber(s), wire(s), elongate pieces of shaped silicon, patterned conductive traces, or other elements adhered, welded, bonded, or otherwise attached to the flexible substrate 330” (Column 21, lines 39-43) (emphasis added). As clearly seen from these cited passages, Wasson et al. explicitly teaches metal trace or conductive trace is adhered, welded, bonded, or otherwise attached to the flexible substrate 330, and a clear or opaque conductive ink is one of well-known and commercially available conductive materials.
In brief, Wasson et al. clearly reads on the limitation, “a circuit system comprising a circuit trace formed of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer formed onto a fabric by adhering, printing, or embedding the clear or opaque conductive ink onto or into the fabric” as argued above and recited in the proposed amendments of claim 13.
With regard to dependent claims 2, 3 and 5-11, all of applicant's arguments are addressed in the above rejections.
As a result, the rejections of claims 1-13 are still deemed proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant' s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Vahid et al. (JP 2019-133664 A) teaches a haptic-enabled user interface having an elastomer suspension with actuation functionality and sensing functionality.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
