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
Receipt is acknowledged of the Amendment filed on March 4, 2026. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application.
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, 4, 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); 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 4, the circuit trace (electrodes or surface conductive pads) is fabricated by at least one of 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) (Paragraphs: [0052]-[0053]).
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); 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
Applicants’ arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ arguments, in the fifth paragraph and the last paragraph at the first page and in the second paragraph at the second page of the Remarks, that “Yairi does not disclose or teach a conductive ink layer as recited by claims 1 and 13. Sputtered ITO, copper, or nanowire materials are not conductive inks. Conductive inks are liquid or paste formulations containing conductive particles that are applied through printing, adhering, or embedding processes” and “Applicant submits that Yairi’s sputtering process is a vacuum deposition technique that deposits thin films of material onto a substrate through physical vapor deposition. This is fundamentally different from the claimed conductive ink layer that is formed by adhering, printing, or embedding onto fabric or vehicle interior materials as recited by claim 4”, the Examiner disagrees.
As clearly discussed in the above rejection of claims 1 and 13, the Examiner equated the conductive pads of Yairi et al.’ s sensor to the claimed circuit trace fabricated of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer formed onto a flexible substrate.
In paragraph [0053], Yairi et al. explicitly discloses that “Conductive pads (e.g., the first conductor) of the sensor 140 that is a capacitive touch sensor can be copper, micro- or nanowire, or a transparent conductor such as indium tin oxide (ITO). For example, the substrate 118 can be masked across both broad faces, and ITO can be sputtered across both broad faces to create perpendicular electrodes including a uniform or varying density of conductive pads. However, that conductive pads of the sensor 140 can include any type of conductive material (or conductive fluid)” (emphasis added). In this paragraph that Yairi et al. discusses possible techniques (by using “For example” and “can be sputtered”, then “However” and “any type of conductive material (or conductive fluid)”), which can be used to apply conductive pads on substrates (emphasis added). It is clear that “sputtering process” as argued above by the applicants is just one of the possible techniques, and another possible technique is that “conductive pads of the sensor 140 can include any type of conductive material (or conductive fluid)” (emphasis added).
In addition, it is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that conductive pads are patterned on substrates using techniques like photolithography (a high-resolution method where a light-sensitive photoresist is coated on the substrate, exposed through a photomask, and developed, leaving a template for plating or etching the conductive pattern for high-precision microelectronics), pad printing (using a flexible silicone pad to transfer conductive paste from a recessed plate onto a substrate, ideal for 3D or flexible surfaces and uneven contours), screen printing, and inkjet printing (conductive inks can be applied via inkjet or aerosol jet printing for flexible electronics) to apply conductive inks or pastes. These methods often involve applying a conductive metal layer, followed by, or simultaneously with, structuring it using masks, photoresist, or chemical etching.
In brief, Yairi et al. clearly reads on the limitation, “a circuit trace fabricated of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer formed onto a flexible substrate affixed to the user interface component” as recited in claims 1, 4 and 13.
In response to applicants’ arguments, in the first paragraph at the second page of the Remarks, that “Yairi’s tactile layer 110 is described as including ‘a smart material, such as Nickel Titanium (i.e., ‘Nitinol) or an electro-active polymer’ and can be made from ‘a polymer, polyurethane, and/or a silicone-based elastomer (e.g., poly-dimethylsiloxane (PDMS), RTV Silicone, etc.)’ or ‘polymers or glass, such as elastomers, silicone-based organic polymers.’ Yairi et al., paragraphs [0036]-[0037]. These polymer and elastomer materials are not the fabric, thermoplastic olefin, or leather vehicle interior materials recited by claim 12.” The Examiner disagrees.
It is clearly seen in paragraphs [0036]-[0037], Yairi et al. discusses possible materials by using the phrase “the tactile layer 110 can be” a number of times, and it lists out one of the possible materials for the tactile layer 110 is polyurethane (PU) (emphasis added), which is well-known for being frequently used as a synthetic leather alternative or coated fabric (specifically PU-coated leather or “pleather”). In addition, Yairi et al. explicitly teaches that “the tactile layer 110 can be of any other form and/or material” (last sentence in paragraph [0038]) or “any other suitable material” (last sentence in paragraph [0037]) (emphasis added).
In addition, it is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that one of any other suitable material is thermoplastic olefins (TPOs), which are high-impact, durable polymer blends combining polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene (PE) with rubber (such as EPDM or EPR) (emphasis added). TPO is commonly and heavily used for high-impact resistance and lightweighting, including automotive bumpers, interior trim panels, roofing membranes, and consumer goods such as lawn tools, garden furniture, and soft-touch sporting equipment.
In brief, Yairi et al. clearly reads on the limitation, “the flexible substrate is a vehicle interior material selected from at least one of fabric, thermoplastic olefin, or leather” as recited in claim 12.
In response to applicants’ arguments, in the first paragraph at the third page of the Remarks, that “Wasson’s conductive materials are formed through deposition, lithography, sputtering, or CVD processes onto polyimide or polymeric substrates. These are not conductive ink layers, and polyimide is not fabric as recited by claim 13. The deposited metal traces in Wasson are fundamentally different from conductive ink, and Wasson's polyimide substrate is not fabric. Accordingly, Wasson fails to anticipate claim 13.” The Examiner disagrees.
It is clearly seen in column 20, lines 1-4, Wasson et al. explicitly teaches that “a flexible substrate 330 that is made of a flexible polymeric or metallic material formed to be mounted to a skin surface” (emphasis added). It is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that a flexible polymeric material is 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, created by turning petroleum-based compounds into long, flexible plastic polymer chains that can be spun into fibers, threads, or formed into flexible sheets.
In addition, it is seen in column 20, lines 1-4, Wasson et al. clearly teaches that “other interconnects between components of the device 300, can be formed by depositing suitable patterns of conductive materials on the substrate 330. A combination of microfabrication techniques including, without limitation, the use of photoresists, masks, deposition techniques and/or plating techniques can be employed to pattern materials on the substrate 330” (emphasis added). It is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that conductive pads are patterned on substrates using techniques like pad printing (using a flexible silicone pad to transfer conductive paste from a recessed plate onto a substrate, ideal for 3D or flexible surfaces and uneven contours), screen printing, and inkjet printing (conductive inks can be applied via inkjet or aerosol jet printing for flexible electronics) to apply conductive inks or pastes. Inkjet printing is considered a precise, additive, and digital deposition process. It works by ejecting tiny picoliter-sized droplets of functional materials (inks) from a nozzle onto a substrate, enabling the creation of precise 2D patterns and 3D microstructures. It is widely used for functional materials deposition in printed electronics.
In brief, Yairi et al. clearly reads on the claimed limitation, “a circuit trace formed of a translucent or opaque conductive ink layer formed onto a fabric” as recited in 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
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.
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