DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US2024/0182104 A1) in view of Kumakiri (US2017/0351256 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a steering device comprising:
a steering wheel which accepts a steering operation of a vehicle by a driver (Fig. 1, Part 2, Paragraphs 30, 31);
a torque sensor which detects steering torque acting on the steering wheel (Fig. 1, Part 40, Paragraph 49);
a measurement device which measures electrostatic capacitance of an electrode provided to the steering wheel (Paragraph 49, Part 60); and
a grip determination device which determines presence/absence of gripping of the steering wheel (Paragraphs 48, 49) and a torque detection value from the torque sensor (Paragraphs 48, 49, the detections of S1-S3 would reflect torque values via Part 60),
wherein the grip determination device determines that the steering wheel is not being gripped in a case of, after determining that the steering wheel is being gripped based on the measurement result, a state in which an absolute value for the torque detection value from the torque sensor is less than a predetermined torque threshold continuing past a predetermined time threshold (Fig. 5, Paragraphs 68-75, especially Steps S202, Steps 204 and Steps S205. The teachings of Fig. 5 show after determining the steering wheel is gripped, the system would repeat the process again, and if one of the answer in Step S202 and Step S203 is no, then the system would consider the steering wheel is not gripped. Under this circumstance, the teachings would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Yamazaki fails to explicitly disclose, but Kumakiri teaches a steering device comprising:
acquires a gripping position on a rim portion of the steering wheel based on a measurement result from measurement device,
change either one or both of the torque threshold and the time threshold based on the gripping position [Kumakiri teaches a steering wheel comprises grip force sensor and grip position sensor (Kumakiri, Paragraph 70, since the system can determined whether the gripping position is on the reference position, it would be known there measurement device) and further teaches the grip torque threshold would be adjusted based on the grip position to judge the driver’s intention more precisely (Kumakiri, Paragraphs 70-75, especially Paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the grip torque threshold of a steering wheel based on the grip position of the steering wheel in order to judge the driver’s intention more precisely (Kumakiri, Paragraphs 70-75).
Regarding to Claim 3, Yamazaki in view of Kumakiri teaches a safe driving support system comprising:
the steering device according to claim 1; and
a controller group communicably connected with the grip determination device (Yamazaki, Paragraph 74).
Regarding to Claim 4, Yamazaki in view of Kumakiri teaches the safe driving support system, wherein the controller group includes a notification device which notifies a driver of information generated based on a determination result from the grip determination device (Paragraph 74, Fig. 5, Step S206).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US2024/0182104 A1) and Kumakiri (US2017/0351256 A1) as applied to Claim 3 or Claim 4 above, and further in view of Sekine (US2022/0024462 A1).
Regarding to Claim 5, Yamazaki and Kumakiri fail to explicitly disclose, but Sekine teaches a safe driving support system, wherein the notification device changes a notification mode between a case of determining that the steering wheel is not being gripped based on the measurement result, and a case of determining that the steering wheel is not being gripped in response to the state in which the absolute value for the torque detection value is less than the torque threshold continuing past the time threshold [Yamazaki teaches an warning would be issued if the steering wheel is not being gripped and/or a gripped torque is less than the torque threshold (Yamazaki, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 68-75), but is silent about any mode change. Sekine teaches a grip detection mechanism of a steering wheel would issue different warnings based on different gripping statuses (Sekine, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 48-70) to secure safety of driving without detracting (Sekine, Paragraphs 68-70). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Sekine to Yamazaki, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and set different notification based on the gripping status of the steering wheel to secure safety of driving without detracting (Sekine, Paragraphs 68-70).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki and Kumakiri to incorporate the teachings of Sekine to set different notification based on the gripping status of the steering wheel to secure safety of driving without detracting (Sekine, Paragraphs 68-70).
Regarding to Claim 6, Yamazaki and Kumakiri fail to explicitly disclose, but Sekine teaches a safe driving support system, wherein the controller group includes a safe driving ability evaluation device which evaluates a safe driving ability of the driver based on the determination result from the grip determination device [Sekine teaches a grip detection of a steering wheel would judge the safety status of the driver based on the gripping determination (Sekine, Paragraphs 48-72) to enhance the driver’s ability to avoid dangerous (Sekine, Paragraph 72).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki and Kumakiri to incorporate the teachings of Sekine to judge a safety status of a driver based on the gripping determination in order to enhance driver’s ability to avoid dangerous (Sekine, Paragraph 72).
Regarding to Claim 7, Yamazaki and Kumakiri fail to explicitly disclose, but Sekine teaches a safe driving support system, wherein the controller group includes an automatic driving device which executes automatic driving control according to a plurality of automatic driving levels, wherein the automatic driving device changes the automatic driving level based on a determination result from the grip determination device [Sekine teaches during an automatic driving status, the system would issue different warning based on the determination of a gripping status of the steering wheel (Sekine, Paragraphs 48-72, since the claimed language fails to teach, explain or indicate the meaning of “automatic driving level”, the examiner considered issued different warnings based on the griping status during the automatic driving status would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to secure the automated driving without detracting (Sekine, Paragraph 68).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki and Kumakiri to incorporate the teachings of Sekine to change automatic driving level based on different griping determination status in order to secure the automated driving without detracting (Sekine, Paragraph 68).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to the Remark, the Applicant argued Yamazaki fails to teach a determination process from determining the steering wheel being gripped to determining the steering wheel not being gripped. The examiner respectfully disagreed.
As the examiner mentioned on the rejection of Claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a continuous process if the system determines the steering wheel is gripped (Yamazaki, Fig. 5, after entering to Step S204, the process will return back to Step S201). Therefore, after entering Step S204, if one of the answers of Step S202 or Step S203 is no, then the system would determine the steering wheel is not being gripped. Therefore, at least under certain circumstances, the teachings of Yamazaki, especially in Fig. 5 after entering Step S204, would still reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding to the amended limitations “gripping position on a rim portion of the steering wheel”, the examiner considered the teachings of Kumakiri, Paragraph 70 would reflect the teachings.
Regarding to the argument Kumakiri fails to teach the limitations “change either one or both of the torque threshold and the time threshold based on the gripping position”, after reviewing the Remark, the examiner considered the Applicant fails to provide any detail or reasons to support the argument. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive, and the examiner considered Kumakiri would still reflect the limitations at least in Paragraphs 70-75.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747