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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-18 were previously pending, of which claims 1 – 3, 7, & 11 have been amended, claims 2, 12, & 15 have been cancelled, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3 – 11, 13 – 14, 16 - 18 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 5-8, filed on 12/30/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The arguments that the amended claim 1 is not taught by Lubischer are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the limitations “…having at least one inclination sensor for sensing a vehicle inclination and…” and “wherein the ascertained parameters include the vehicle inclination as a vehicle parameter.” as amended in claim 1. However, a further search revealed that Khlifi did disclose these limitations as mapped in the second non-final office action below. Therefore, new grounds of rejection in view of Khlifi are mapped below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3, 8 – 9, 12, 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”).
Regarding claim 1, Lubischer discloses a vehicle comprising:
a steering wheel which can be transferred between a steering position and a non-steering position; and [0020] - [0021] Lubischer teaches a steering wheel (18) being in a steering position and a non-rotatable position (Fig. 1).
a system which only enables the transfer of the steering wheel into the non-steering position when the vehicle is in a non-steered state and when an activation signal for the transfer into the non-steering position is given, [0020] - [0021] A steering column assembly (14) contains a steering column adjustment assembly (30). Lubischer also has a decoupling assembly (32) which all deal with the transfer movement between the steering wheel positions. All these components together create a system that enables the transfer of the steering wheel into a non-steering position. When an occupant has the steering wheel in the form of a utility position (24), it is most likely because the occupant is eating, reading, working, or doing any other form of entertainment. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill that for an occupant to be doing any of these forms of entertainment that the car be in a non-steered state due to the steering wheel being decoupled in order to prevent the steering wheel from rotating [0037]. An actuator system (64) is used in order to move the steering column (14) into certain positions for the driver (46). The column adjustment assembly is also configured to move the steering column shaft into multiple positions, the utility position (24) included [0019]. This adjustment is automated [0003]. If taking all this together, then it is inherent that all these components work together in order to have a fully automated system as described. This automated system can functionally move the steering wheel into the utility position (24) electronically. An activation signal can be given via a switch or motor controller [0023].
8. Lubischer teaches the system comprising a monitoring device… [0024] Lubischer teaches sensors (36) to monitor driver compartment conditions, the driver’s conditions, vehicle environment, and vehicle control systems. The sensors (36) constitute as a monitoring device.
Lubischer does not explicitly teach …having at least one inclination sensor for sensing a vehicle inclination…
However, Khlifi teaches …having at least one inclination sensor for sensing a vehicle inclination… [0026] Khlifi teaches a device (3) for detecting an angle of inclination of the motor vehicle (1). This device constitutes as an inclination sensor.
Lubischer and Khlifi are analogous art because Lubsicher teaches a monitoring a monitoring device while Khlifi teaches a device that measures the angle of inclination of a vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to combine Lubischer and Khili because vehicle inclination affects vehicle control behavior, sensor interpretation, and safety systems. Incorporating Khlifi’s inclination detection sensor into Lubischer’s monitoring system would have improved Lubischer’s ability to accurately monitor vehicle conditions. The combination would have involved incorporating a known inclination detection sensor/technique into an existing vehicle monitoring system to enhance its functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Khlifi, to modify the teachings of the Lubischer to include the teachings of Khlifi to further enhance the monitoring system to incorporate safety features that relate to a detected inclination of the vehicle.
9. Lubischer teaches …configured and arranged such that the steering wheel in its non-steering position can be set such that its position with respect to a vehicle occupant is adapted at least according to ascertained parameters [0032] – [0035], Sensors 36A and 36B are sensors that are used to detect and monitor the distances of objects during the adjustment of the steering wheel when changing positions. When the steering column (14) is being adjusted by the actuators (64), the sensors 36A and 36B are detecting the distance between the steering wheel and an object (60). When the sensors notice that the distance between the object (60) is very minimal, the steering wheel (18) comes to a halt which constitutes an ascertained parameter.
10. Lubischer does not explicitly teach wherein the ascertained parameters include the vehicle inclination as a vehicle parameter.
However, Khlifi in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ascertained parameters include the vehicle inclination as a vehicle parameter [0026]. Khlifi teaches a device (3) for detecting an angle of inclination of the motor vehicle (1). This device constitutes as an inclination sensor. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that Khlifi’s device (3) would naturally be included amongst the ascertained parameters of Lubishcer’s monitoring device. Since Lubishcer teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor vehicle conditions and vehicle control systems [Lubischer 0024] using sensors, this involves ascertaining parameters representing the physical state of the vehicle as well as operational parameters. Vehicle inclination represents a physical state of the vehicle and vehicle control systems, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood inclination to be a fundamental vehicle condition parameter.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lubischer with the teachings of Khlifi, to more accurately adjust the steering wheel to a steering or non-steering position according to the relative axis of the vehicle.
11. Regarding claim 3 & 12, Lubischer does not explicitly teach the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vehicle inclination is along a longitudinal axis and/or transverse axis.
However, Khlifi in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 2, wherein the vehicle inclination is along a longitudinal axis and/or transverse axis [0011], [0031]. Khlifi teaches on vehicle inclination being at an angle of inclination about the longitudinal and transverse axis of the motor vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lubischer with the teachings of Khlifi, to efficiently determine the state of the level of the vehicle to be able to adjust the steering wheel into a steering position or non-steering position in a safer manner.
Regarding claim 8 & 16, Lubischer discloses the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system comprises a steering wheel adjustment device [0023]. A decoupling assembly (32) decouples one or more portions of the assembly (14) in order for the steering wheel to transform into its utility position (24). This constitutes as a steering wheel adjustment device due to it allowing the adjustment of the steering wheel into the utility position (24).
Regarding claim 9 & 17, Lubischer discloses the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system comprises a steering column adjustment device [0021]. Lubischer teaches a steering column assembly (14) which further includes a steering column adjustment assembly (30) which can adjust the position of the steering wheel itself between positions 18, 22, and 24 (Fig. 1).
14. Claim(s) 4 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”), and further in view of US20120299344A1 (hereinafter, “Breed”).
15. Regarding claim 4 & 13, the modified Lubischer reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein one of the ascertained parameters as a vehicle occupant parameter is the size of a vehicle occupant.
However, Breed in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein one of the ascertained parameters as a vehicle occupant parameter is the size of a vehicle occupant [0455], [0502]. Breed teaches on determining an optimum position of the steering wheel for drivers of different sizes. Height sensors 353, 354, and 355 which are located at the headrest determines an individual’s height (Fig, 25). Weight sensor (252) located in the seat measure an individual’s weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Lubischer reference with the teachings of Breed, to more accurately gauge the size of an occupant in order to help when adjusting the steering wheel into various positions.
16. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”), and further in view of US20160375925A1 (hereinafter, “Riefe”).
17. Regarding claim 5, the modified Lubischer reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises an in-vehicle monitoring system.
However, Riefe in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises an in-vehicle monitoring system [0021]. Riefe teaches a sensor assembly (34) that contains a plurality of different types of sensors to monitor the space inside of the vehicle compartment (10). This plurality of different types of sensors constitutes as an in-vehicle monitoring system.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Lubischer reference with the teachings of Riefe, to more effectively gather information within the vehicle cabin to adjust the steering wheel accordingly [0030].
18. Claim(s) 6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”), and further in view of WO2016006019A1 (hereinafter, “Swaminathan”).
19. Regarding claim 6 & 14, the modified Lubischer reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises a seat position detector for detecting a seat position.
However, Swaminathan in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises a seat position detector for detecting a seat position (Pg. 2 “…a seat position detector 12
configured to output a detection signal of a seat position to the controller C,…” Pg. 7 “…the calculation unit 50 calculates a distance between the steering wheel 80 and the driver 200 on the basis of the position of the seat, the position of the steering wheel, and the angle of the seatback…”). Swaminathan teaches on having a seat position detector (12). Detects the position of the seat and outputs it to the controller (C). Seat position detector (12) detects the position of the seat in relation to the steering wheel (Pg. 2 “…an alarm unit 14 configured to provide a warning regarding…”).
appropriate positions of the seat and a steering wheel under the control of the controller C.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Lubischer reference with the teachings of Breed, to detect how close or how far the seat is positioned in order to adjust the steering wheel accordingly.
20. Claim(s) 7 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”), and further in view of US20140184799A1 (hereinafter, “Kussel”).
21. Regarding claim 7 & 15, Lubischer does not explicitly teach the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises a plurality of inclination sensors.
However, Kussel in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises a plurality of inclination sensors ([0023], [0034] – [0035] Fig. 5). Kussel teaches having a plurality of inclination sensors. A camera may have an inclination sensor associated with it [0035]. Therefore, multiple cameras may each have an inclination sensor representing a plurality of inclination sensors.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lubischer with the teachings of Kussel, to more effectively adjust vehicle control systems based on the detected inclination of the vehicle.
22. Claim(s) 10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”), and further in view of US20220063448A1 (hereinafter, “Munoz”).
23. Regarding claim 10 & 18, Lubischer does not explicitly teach the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system comprises a seat adjustment device.
However, Munoz in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system comprises a seat adjustment device ([0026], [0060] Fig. 2). Munoz teaches a system that has a seat adjustment device. The seat adjustment device being the actuator system (6) which adjusts the seat in the direction of the driver getting close or further away from the pedal. Another adjustment on the seat is the actuator system (7) which adjusts the height of the seat cushion. Adjustment of the steering wheel can also occur [0060].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lubischer with the teachings of Munoz, to efficiently adjust the seat in accordance with how the steering wheel is transformed to have space for the occupant.
24. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190322306A1 (hereinafter, “Lubischer”), and further in view of DE102014012841A1 (hereinafter, “Khlifi”), and further in view of US20180154932A1 (hereinafter, “Rakouth”).
Regarding claim 11, Lubischer discloses a vehicle comprising:
a steering wheel which can be transferred between a steering position and a non-steering position; and [0020] - [0021] Lubischer teaches a steering wheel (18) being in a steering position and a non-rotatable position (Fig. 1).
a system which only enables the transfer of the steering wheel into the non-steering position when the vehicle is in a non-steered state and when an activation signal for the transfer into the non-steering position is given, [0020] - [0021] A steering column assembly (14) contains a steering column adjustment assembly (30). Lubischer also has a decoupling assembly (32) which all deal with the transfer movement between the steering wheel positions. All these components together create a system that enables the transfer of the steering wheel into a non-steering position. When an occupant has the steering wheel in the form of a utility position (24), it is most likely because the occupant is eating, reading, working, or doing any other form of entertainment. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill that for an occupant to be doing any of these forms of entertainment that the car be in a non-steered state due to the steering wheel being decoupled in order to prevent the steering wheel from rotating [0037]. An actuator system (64) is used in order to move the steering column (14) into certain positions for the driver (46). The column adjustment assembly is also configured to move the steering column shaft into multiple positions, the utility position (24) included [0019]. This adjustment is automated [0003]. If taking all this together, then it is inherent that all these components work together in order to have a fully automated system as described. This automated system can functionally move the steering wheel into the utility position (24) electronically. An activation signal can be given via a switch or motor controller [0023].
26. Lubischer teaches the system comprising a monitoring device… [0024] Lubischer teaches sensors (36) to monitor driver compartment conditions, the driver’s conditions, vehicle environment, and vehicle control systems. The sensors (36) constitute as a monitoring device.
Lubischer does not explicitly teach …having at least one inclination sensor for sensing a vehicle inclination…
However, Khlifi teaches …having at least one inclination sensor for sensing a vehicle inclination… [0026] Khlifi teaches a device (3) for detecting an angle of inclination of the motor vehicle (1). This device constitutes as an inclination sensor.
Lubischer and Khlifi are analogous art because Lubsicher teaches a monitoring a monitoring device while Khlifi teaches a device that measures the angle of inclination of a vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to combine Lubischer and Khili because vehicle inclination affects vehicle control behavior, sensor interpretation, and safety systems. Incorporating Khlifi’s inclination detection sensor into Lubischer’s monitoring system would have improved Lubischer’s ability to accurately monitor vehicle conditions. The combination would have involved incorporating a known inclination detection sensor/technique into an existing vehicle monitoring system to enhance its functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Khlifi, to modify the teachings of the Lubischer to include the teachings of Khlifi to further enhance the monitoring system to incorporate safety features that relate to a detected inclination of the vehicle.
27. Lubischer teaches …configured and arranged such that the steering wheel in its non-steering position can be set such that its position with respect to a vehicle occupant is adapted at least according to ascertained parameters [0032] – [0035], Sensors 36A and 36B are sensors that are used to detect and monitor the distances of objects during the adjustment of the steering wheel when changing positions. When the steering column (14) is being adjusted by the actuators (64), the sensors 36A and 36B are detecting the distance between the steering wheel and an object (60). When the sensors notice that the distance between the object (60) is very minimal, the steering wheel (18) comes to a halt which constitutes an ascertained parameter.
28. Lubischer does not explicitly teach wherein the ascertained parameters include the vehicle inclination as a vehicle parameter,…
However, Khlifi in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ascertained parameters include the vehicle inclination as a vehicle parameter,… [0026] Khlifi teaches a device (3) for detecting an angle of inclination of the motor vehicle (1). This device constitutes as an inclination sensor. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that Khlifi’s device (3) would naturally be included amongst the ascertained parameters of Lubishcer’s monitoring device. Since Lubishcer teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor vehicle conditions and vehicle control systems [Lubischer 0024] using sensors, this involves ascertaining parameters representing the physical state of the vehicle as well as operational parameters. Vehicle inclination represents a physical state of the vehicle and vehicle control systems, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood inclination to be a fundamental vehicle condition parameter.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lubischer with the teachings of Khlifi, to more accurately adjust the steering wheel to a steering or non-steering position according to the relative axis of the vehicle.
29. Lubischer does not explicitly teach …and the vehicle inclination is along a longitudinal axis and/or transverse axis.
However, Khlifi in the same field of endeavor, teaches …and the vehicle inclination is along a longitudinal axis and/or transverse axis [0011], [0031]. Khlifi teaches on vehicle inclination being at an angle of inclination about the longitudinal and transverse axis of the motor vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lubischer with the teachings of Khlifi, to efficiently determine the state of the level of the vehicle to be able to adjust the steering wheel into a steering position or non-steering position in a safer manner.
Conclusion
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669