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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s priority filing: U.S. Provisional Application 63/541,615, filed 09/29/2023.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/08/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 16-20 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 16 and 19 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context, wherein the number of detents is equal to the number of specific values used to control operation of the component, and wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to a selected value of the number of specific values used to control operation of the component";
[B.] “Szczerba fails to disclose that the number of detents per rotation (revolution) of the knobs of his MF adaptive steering wheel controls 241, 242 is generated based on the user control context and is equal to the number of specific values used to control operation of the component.”;
[C.] “Szczerba fails to teach or suggest that the number of his fixed detents is equal to the number of specific values used to control the operation of his component (such as HVAC, audio, etc.). See, e.g., instant specification at Paragraph 0079. Instead, Szczerba merely discloses that the detents in his adaptive steering wheel control 241, 242 may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings.”;
[D.] “Applicant respectfully submits that, at most, Szczerba discloses a genus of multifunction steering-wheel controls having rotary knobs with fixed detents and selectable tactile resistance. The presently amended claims, however, are directed to a different genus of steering-wheel control architecture in which the number of detents per revolution is dynamically generated based on a current user control context and further corresponds to the number of specific selectable values associated with that context. See, e.g., MPEP § 2144.08.”
Applicant's arguments A., B., C. and D. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayser et al. (US 2008/0190681 A1, henceforth Mayser) and North et al. (US 8,138,865 B2, henceforth North).
Regarding Claim 1, Mayser teaches the limitations: a method of controlling a component of a vehicle {controlling acceleration of a vehicle, ¶2}, comprising: detecting, by a control system of the vehicle {driver assistance system, Fig. 1, ¶19}, an actuation {rotation of acceleration operator control element 1a, ¶48, as one example} of a manual control assembly positioned on a steering controller of the vehicle {control elements 1a, 2, 3, 4a and 4b disposed on the steering wheel in Figs. 1-2}, wherein the manual control assembly comprises a scroll wheel {knurled wheel 1a, Figs. 1-2; ¶23, both acceleration and speed operator control elements can be knurled wheels, ¶46} and is configured to receive a plurality of actuations {¶46-47: push button actuation of 4a, 4b; rotational actuation of knurled wheels 1a and 2; shift lever 5 may be pushed towards and away from the driver} and the actuation is one of the plurality of {acceleration and speed altered by directional rotation of operator control element 1a and 2, respectively, ¶46-48)}; determining, by the control system, a user control context associated with the actuation of the manual control assembly, wherein the user control context includes the component of the vehicle {different actuation device to change the operating conditions of different vehicle systems (¶47-48); rotational actuation of knurled wheels 1a, 2 (with finely graduated increments) for altering speed/acceleration and shift lever 5 for changing transmission gears} and a number of specific values used to control operation of the component {fine graduations of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) are detected and translated into a signal via digital increment encoder, ¶28; counting increments, ¶24}; adjusting, by the control system and based on the user control context, an operational state of the manual control assembly for receiving a user input {user input corresponding to rotation of knurled wheels 1a/2, Figs. 1-2, to change acceleration/speed, ¶47-48}, the operational state comprising a tactile response generated by the manual control assembly {the knurling or ribs of knob 1a, Figs. 1-2, provides a tactile indicator to the user, as does the feel of rotating the knob due to the finely graduated increments, ¶47-48}, the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of the scroll wheel {“A discrete increment encoder with two directions in order to set the desired speed (many steps), preferably a knurled wheel or a roll.”, ¶33, the steps corresponding to the finely graduated increments of ¶47-48}, wherein the number of detents is equal to the number of specific values used to control operation of the component {via an increment encoder (¶24, ¶28), the fine graduations of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) are directly translated into incremental changes in acceleration and speed}, and wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to a selected value of the number of specific values used to control operation of the component {via an increment encoder (¶24, ¶28), turning one of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) by a preferred number of increments (or graduations) will directly translated into a corresponding incremental change in acceleration or speed, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; and upon receiving a user selection of the selected values via the manual control assembly {since both 1a and 2 can be knurled wheel control elements, ¶46, rotation of either, by any amount, will change an aspect of vehicle speed and/or acceleration, for at least some period of time}, facilitating, by the control system, executing of a control operation for the component of the vehicle based on the selected value {rotating the knurled wheel 1a, Fig. 2, will increase or decrease the setpoint acceleration: “The device exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration.”, ¶17}.
Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context.
However, North explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated {“Electromagnets 238 can be selectively energized/magnetized to effectively vary the number, position, and/or strength of the detents associated with knob ring 236”, Col. 7, Lns. 61-63} based on the user control context {varying the number of detents depends on operating mode, Col. 7, Ln. 63 – Col. 8, Ln. 11}.
Mayser and North are analogous art because the both deal with system control elements.
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 Mayser and North before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser to include the teachings of North provide different levels of control for different operation modes of a system {Col. 7, Ln. 63 – Col. 8, Ln. 11}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: displaying information associated with the component of the vehicle on a display of the vehicle {1b and 1c, Figs. 1-2}, wherein the information comprises the number of values used to control operation of the component {numerical read-outs associated with control elements 1a, 2 and 3, positioned just above the combinations of input switches: ”a display unit 1b that displays an elapsed time of a set acceleration, and a display unit 1c, which displays a set acceleration.”, ¶49}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: causing, by the control system, the actuated manual control assembly to generate sensory feedback corresponding to the control operation for the component, the sensory feedback comprising at least one of haptic feedback, auditory feedback, or visual feedback {visual feedback provided by one or more displays when control elements 1a or 2 is adjusted, such a change in cruise control speed: ”a display unit 1b that displays an elapsed time of a set acceleration, and a display unit 1c, which displays a set acceleration.”, ¶49}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the manual control assembly further comprises a haptic actuator; and the tactile response further includes: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback generated by the haptic actuator.
However, North explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: the manual control assembly further comprises a haptic actuator {“rotary knob assembly 10 having a haptic feedback system”, Col. 3, Lns. 15-16}; and the tactile response further includes: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel {rotary knob assembly 10, Figs. 3-10}; and a haptic feedback generated by the haptic actuator {magnetic field based feedback system: “A haptic feedback system includes movable and static portions coupled by one or more magnetic fields that serve to retard movement of the movable portion with respect to the static portion so as to provide haptic feedback when the movable portion is moved relative to the static portion.”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: displaying a resulting operational state of the component from executing the control operation on a display of the vehicle {visual feedback provided by one or more displays when control elements 1a or 2 is adjusted, such a change in cruise control speed: ”a display unit 1b that displays an elapsed time of a set acceleration, and a display unit 1c, which displays a set acceleration.”, ¶49}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: displaying, on a display of the vehicle, a graphical representation of the user control context and the control operation for the component based on the selected value of the number of specific values {numerical representation of information on a display related to vehicle speed or acceleration changes/adjustments: ”a display unit 1b that displays an elapsed time of a set acceleration, and a display unit 1c, which displays a set acceleration.”, ¶49}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein detecting the actuation of the manual control assembly comprises: detecting, using one or more sensors of the vehicle, at least one of a direction of the actuation {encoder: “preferably a speed operator control element which includes an increment encoder with two directions. The increment encoder may have, in principle, the same functionality as the increment encoder of the acceleration operator control element, in order to set or change the desired speed.” ¶27)}, a force of the actuation, a duration of the actuation, or a speed of the actuation, wherein the control operation is based on the at least one of the direction of the actuation {control elements 1a and 2 are designed to be knurled wheels with two-directional motion (e.g., “The acceleration operator control element according to the invention includes, preferably, an increment encoder with two directions. In this case the increment encoder with two directions can be an analog or a digital element”, ¶24; and similarly for the speed control element 2 in ¶27)}, the force of the actuation, the duration of the actuation, or the speed of the actuation.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein executing the control operation for the component causes at least one of: one or more attributes of a media system of the vehicle to be adjusted, one or more attributes of a climate system of the vehicle to be adjusted, a phone call associated with the vehicle to be accepted or rejected, one or more attributes of a driver assistance system of the vehicle to be adjusted, or one or more attributes of a driving dynamics system of the vehicle to be adjusted {setting speed and/or acceleration: “An operator control device, which is intended for a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration/setpoint deceleration, includes acceleration operator control element for inputting an additional acceleration”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein the manual control assembly is positioned at one side of the steering controller with respect to a user operating the vehicle {control elements 1a, 2, 3, 4a and 4b, Figs. 1-2}, and wherein a graphical representation of the user control context is displayed on the one side of a display of the vehicle with respect to the user {the information displayed on 1b and 1c, Figs. 1-2, is displayed on a central display (“These two display units 1b, 1c may also be dispensed with, especially in the event that there is a display by means of a central display instrument.”, ¶49), whereas, the control elements are disposed on the left or right side of the steering wheel}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein the manual control assembly comprises a multi-modal control mechanism, wherein each of the plurality of actuations comprises an actuation of the multi-modal control mechanism {knurled wheels/rollers for control elements 1a and 2, and rocker switch for control element 3, ¶46, and push buttons for activating/deactivating elements 4a and 4b, ¶47}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein the multi-modal control mechanism is capable of bidirectional actuation along a first axis, wherein actuation in a first direction along the first axis corresponds to a first control operation for the component of the vehicle and actuation in a second direction along the first axis corresponds to a second control operation for the component of the vehicle {acceleration operator control element 1a is designed to be a knurled wheel or wheel, ¶24, with two-directional motion: “The acceleration operator control element according to the invention includes, preferably, an increment encoder with two directions. In this case the increment encoder with two directions can be an analog or a digital element”, the opposing rotational directions corresponding to increasing and decreasing acceleration}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein the multi-modal control mechanism is capable of bidirectional actuation by spinning around a central rotational axis, wherein actuation in a first direction around the central rotational axis corresponds to a first control operation for the component of the vehicle and actuation in a second direction around the central rotational axis corresponds to a second control operation for the component of the vehicle {acceleration operator control element 1a is designed to be a knurled wheel or wheel, ¶24, with two-directional motion: “The acceleration operator control element according to the invention includes, preferably, an increment encoder with two directions. In this case the increment encoder with two directions can be an analog or a digital element”, the opposing rotational directions corresponding to increasing and decreasing acceleration}.
Claims 6 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayser, North and Ha (US 9,776,513 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and North does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein facilitating the executing of the control operation comprises: measuring a current operational state of the component; and determining, by the control system, that the current operational state is within predefined limits of operation for the component.
However, Ha explicitly recites the limitation: wherein facilitating the executing of the control operation comprises: measuring a current operational state of the component; and determining, by the control system, that the current operational state is within predefined limits of operation for the component {operation of rotating-ball based sensor 102, Figs. 1-3B, includes at least one Hall sensor, a current carrying sensor, described in detail in Col. 8, Lns. 16-49}.
The combination of Mayser and North along with Ha are analogous art because they both deal with input controllers integrated into an electronic device.
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 Mayser, North and Ha before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Mayser and North to include the teachings of Ha to provide a highly responsive steering wheel input device {102, Figs 1-2 and Col. 8, Lns. 16-49}.
Regarding Claim 16, Mayser teaches the limitations: a system for controlling a component of a vehicle {Abstract}, comprising: a manual control assembly positioned on a steering controller of the vehicle {1a, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, Figs. 1-2}, the manual control assembly comprising a scroll wheel {knurled wheel 1a, Figs. 1-2; ¶23, both acceleration and speed operator control elements can be knurled wheels, ¶46}; detect an actuation of the manual control assembly {rotation of acceleration operator control element 1a, ¶48, as one example}, wherein the manual control assembly comprises a scroll wheel {knurled wheel 1a, Figs. 1-2; ¶23, both acceleration and speed operator control elements can be knurled wheels, ¶46} and is configured to receive a plurality of actuations {¶46-47: push button actuation of 4a, 4b; rotational actuation of knurled wheels 1a and 2; shift lever 5 may be pushed towards and away from the driver} and the actuation is one of the plurality of {acceleration and speed altered by directional rotation of operator control element 1a and 2, respectively, ¶46-48)}; determine a user control context associated with the actuation of the manual control assembly, wherein the user control context includes the component of the vehicle {different actuation device to change the operating conditions of different vehicle systems (¶47-48); rotational actuation of knurled wheels 1a, 2 (with finely graduated increments) for altering speed/acceleration and shift lever 5 for changing transmission gears} and a number of specific values used to control operation of the component {fine graduations of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) are detected and translated into a signal via digital increment encoder, ¶28; counting increments, ¶24}; the operational state comprising a tactile response generated by the manual control assembly {the knurling or ribs of knob 1a, Figs. 1-2, provides a tactile indicator to the user, as does the feel of rotating the knob due to the finely graduated increments, ¶47-48}, the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of the scroll wheel {“A discrete increment encoder with two directions in order to set the desired speed (many steps), preferably a knurled wheel or a roll.”, ¶33, the steps corresponding to the finely graduated increments of ¶47-48}, wherein the number of detents is equal to the number of specific values used to control operation of the component {via an increment encoder (¶24, ¶28), the fine graduations of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) are directly translated into incremental changes in acceleration and speed}, and wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to a selected value of the number of specific values used to control operation of the component {via an increment encoder (¶24, ¶28), turning one of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) by a preferred number of increments (or graduations) will directly translated into a corresponding incremental change in acceleration or speed, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; and upon receiving a user selection of the selected values via the manual control assembly {since both 1a and 2 can be knurled wheel control elements, ¶46, rotation of either, by any amount, will change an aspect of vehicle speed and/or acceleration, for at least some period of time}, facilitate executing of a control operation for the component of the vehicle based on the selected value {rotating the knurled wheel 1a, Fig. 2, will increase or decrease the setpoint acceleration: “The device exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration.”, ¶17}.
Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: one or more programs stored in a memory of a control system operable with executing the one or more programs; and wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context.
However, North explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated {“Electromagnets 238 can be selectively energized/magnetized to effectively vary the number, position, and/or strength of the detents associated with knob ring 236”, Col. 7, Lns. 61-63} based on the user control context {varying the number of detents depends on operating mode, Col. 7, Ln. 63 – Col. 8, Ln. 11}.
The combination of Mayser and North does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: one or more programs stored in a memory of a control system operable with executing the one or more programs.
However, Ha explicitly recites the limitation: one or more programs stored in a memory of a control system operable with executing the one or more programs {hardware device including processor, memory and instructions, Col. 4, Lns. 35-43, including programming for operating steering wheel – rotating ball - input device 102 in Fig. 2}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Mayser, North and Ha discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein the control system is further operable when executing the one or more programs to: display information associated with the component of the vehicle on a display of the vehicle {1b and 1c, Figs. 1-2}, wherein the information comprises the one or more values used to control operation of the component {numerical read-outs associated with control elements 1a, 2 and 3, positioned just above the combinations of input switches: ”a display unit 1b that displays an elapsed time of a set acceleration, and a display unit 1c, which displays a set acceleration.”, ¶49}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mayser, North and Ha discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein: the manual control assembly further comprises a haptic actuator; and the tactile response further includes: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback generated by the haptic actuator.
However, North explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: the manual control assembly further comprises a haptic actuator {“rotary knob assembly 10 having a haptic feedback system”, Col. 3, Lns. 15-16}; and the tactile response further includes: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel {rotary knob assembly 10, Figs. 3-10}; and a haptic feedback generated by the haptic actuator {magnetic field based feedback system: “A haptic feedback system includes movable and static portions coupled by one or more magnetic fields that serve to retard movement of the movable portion with respect to the static portion so as to provide haptic feedback when the movable portion is moved relative to the static portion.”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
Regarding Claim 19, Mayser teaches the limitations: a control system of a vehicle {Abstract}, causes the control system to: detect an actuation of a manual control assembly positioned on a steering controller {1a, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, Figs. 1-2} of the vehicle {“An operator control device, which is intended for a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration/setpoint deceleration”, ¶2}, wherein the manual control assembly comprises a scroll wheel {knurled wheel 1a, Figs. 1-2; ¶23, both acceleration and speed operator control elements can be knurled wheels, ¶46} and is configured to receive a plurality of actuations {¶46-47: push button actuation of 4a, 4b; rotational actuation of knurled wheels 1a and 2; shift lever 5 may be pushed towards and away from the driver} and the actuation is one of the plurality of {acceleration and speed altered by directional rotation of operator control element 1a and 2, respectively, ¶46-48)}; determine a user control context associated with the actuation of the manual control assembly, wherein the user control context includes the component of the vehicle {different actuation device to change the operating conditions of different vehicle systems (¶47-48); rotational actuation of knurled wheels 1a, 2 (with finely graduated increments) for altering speed/acceleration and shift lever 5 for changing transmission gears} and a number of specific values used to control operation of the component {fine graduations of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) are detected and translated into a signal via digital increment encoder, ¶28; counting increments, ¶24}; the operational state comprising a tactile response generated by the manual control assembly {the knurling or ribs of knob 1a, Figs. 1-2, provides a tactile indicator to the user, as does the feel of rotating the knob due to the finely graduated increments, ¶47-48}, the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of the scroll wheel {“A discrete increment encoder with two directions in order to set the desired speed (many steps), preferably a knurled wheel or a roll.”, ¶33, the steps corresponding to the finely graduated increments of ¶47-48}, wherein the number of detents is equal to the number of specific values used to control operation of the component {via an increment encoder (¶24, ¶28), the fine graduations of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) are directly translated into incremental changes in acceleration and speed}, and wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to a selected value of the number of specific values used to control operation of the component {via an increment encoder (¶24, ¶28), turning one of knurled wheels 1a/2 (¶48) by a preferred number of increments (or graduations) will directly translated into a corresponding incremental change in acceleration or speed, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; and upon receiving a user selection of the selected values via the manual control assembly {since both 1a and 2 can be knurled wheel control elements, ¶46, rotation of either, by any amount, will change an aspect of vehicle speed and/or acceleration, for at least some period of time}, facilitate executing of a control operation for the component of the vehicle based on the selected value {rotating the knurled wheel 1a, Fig. 2, will increase or decrease the setpoint acceleration: “The device exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration.”, ¶17}.
Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by a control system of a vehicle causes the control system to: detect an actuation of a manual control assembly; and wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context.
However, North explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated {“Electromagnets 238 can be selectively energized/magnetized to effectively vary the number, position, and/or strength of the detents associated with knob ring 236”, Col. 7, Lns. 61-63} based on the user control context {varying the number of detents depends on operating mode, Col. 7, Ln. 63 – Col. 8, Ln. 11}.
The combination of Mayser and North does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by a control system of a vehicle causes the control system to: detect an actuation of a manual control assembly.
However, Ha explicitly recites the limitation: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by a control system of a vehicle causes the control system to: detect an actuation of a manual control assembly {102, Figs. 1-2: “The driver may generate a needed input signal, which is a signal inputted from the input device 102 to a controller of the vehicle, by operating the protrusion part of the ball 302 of FIG. 3 in various manner, such as rotation, click, and press.”, Col. 5, Lns. 21-25}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Mayser, North and Ha discloses the limitations of Claim 19, as discussed supra. In addition, Mayser recites the limitation: wherein: the instructions when executed by the control system further cause the control system to display information associated with the component of the vehicle on a display of the vehicle {1b and 1c, Figs. 1-2}, wherein the information comprises the selected value used to control operation of the component {numerical read-outs associated with control elements 1a, 2 and 3, positioned just above the combinations of input switches: ”a display unit 1b that displays an elapsed time of a set acceleration, and a display unit 1c, which displays a set acceleration.”, ¶49}.
Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: the tactile response further includes a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel and a haptic feedback generated by a haptic actuator.
However, North explicitly recites the limitation: the tactile response further includes a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel {rotary knob assembly 10, Figs. 3-10}; and a haptic feedback generated {magnetic field based feedback system: “A haptic feedback system includes movable and static portions coupled by one or more magnetic fields that serve to retard movement of the movable portion with respect to the static portion so as to provide haptic feedback when the movable portion is moved relative to the static portion.”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40} by the haptic actuator {“rotary knob assembly 10 having a haptic feedback system”, Col. 3, Lns. 15-16}.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayser, North and Badarnch (US 2003/0023353 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and North does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the actuation of the manual control assembly is a capacitive actuation, and wherein the graphical representation of the control operation is displayed based on the capacitive actuation.
However, Badarnch explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the actuation of the manual control assembly is a capacitive actuation {the steering wheel input devices in Fig. 46 are touch pads 85/86, which can be touch screens per ¶176}, and wherein the graphical representation of the control operation is displayed based on the capacitive actuation {changes implemented by actuating steering wheel input device are registered on a display: “FIG. 21 is an illustration of a steering wheel and display/dashboard, and shows how the design could be implemented and how it functions together with the switches.”, ¶36, and “As will be seen from that shown in FIG. 21, the most used functions in connection with the arrangement will be present on a display screen 16 that is positioned on the car dashboard 21…All movements related to the switches 1, 1′ and 9, 9′ can be followed on the display 16 in the same way, so that the driver does not need to watch the physical movement of the switch by looking at the switch”, ¶0130}.
Mayser, North and Badarnch are analogous art because they deal with integrated or capable of being integrated into a steering wheel.
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 Mayser, North and Badarnch before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser and North to include the teachings of Badarnch to enhance safety by allowing a driver to adjust a vehicle infotainment system without taking their eyes off the road {“The device is based on the use of special multifunction switches that are mounted on the steering wheel. The switches are preferably adjustable in order to satisfy the driver's requirements as regards ergonomics and use in order to enhance safety.”, ¶11}.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayser, North and Eun (KR 20140040981 A).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mayser and North discloses the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and North does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the multi-modal control mechanism is further capable of bidirectional actuation along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, wherein actuation in a first direction along the second axis corresponds to a third control operation for the component of the vehicle and actuation in a second direction along the second axis corresponds to a fourth control operation for the component of the vehicle.
However, Eun explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the multi-modal control mechanism {“An object of the present invention is to provide a bidirectional rotation, push-click and tilt-click functions of a wheel, so that the user controls the vehicle infotainment system with more various operations.”, Pg. 2, Lns. 30-32, corresponding to the variety of wheel movements represented in Figs. 1, 3, 4 and 5} is further capable of bidirectional actuation along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, wherein actuation in a first direction along the second axis corresponds to a third control operation for the component of the vehicle and actuation in a second direction along the second axis corresponds to a fourth control operation for the component of the vehicle {wheel actuation modes are further described on Pg. 6, Lns. 13-15 (i.e., “a first input unit includes a wheel rotating in a right direction 926, a wheel rotating in a left direction 927, a wheel tilting upward and an upward tilt clicking function 966 and the wheel. It has a downward tilt click 967 function which is clicked while tilting downward.”) and different movements being aimed at activating different functions is described on Pg. 2, Lns. 13-16 (i.e., “ the user can control the infotainment system for the vehicle without taking your hands off the vehicle steering wheel to prevent the user's distraction and improve the safety, while providing a variety of functions”), one skilled in the art will appreciate that infotainment functions can include changes in volume, radio station selection, track on a compact disc, etc.}.
Mayser, North and Eun are analogous art because they deal with input controllers integrated or capable of being integrated into a steering wheel.
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 Mayser, North and Eun before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser and North to include the teachings of Eun to enhance safety by allowing a driver to adjust a vehicle infotainment system without taking their eyes off the road {“the user can control the infotainment system for the vehicle without taking your hands off the vehicle steering wheel to prevent the user's distraction and improve the safety, while providing a variety of functions”, Pg. 2, Lns. 13-16}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2006/0155441 A1 – A scroll wheel, in combination with a central push button, enable selection of different vehicle systems from an interactive menu on a display the driver can view while still looking straight ahead.
DE 101013002358 A1 – Rotary control unit with haptic feedback enabling scrolling through a menu.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190.. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
