DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
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 02/18/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 3-4, 16, and 18-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 rejections, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of a scroll wheel, wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context";
“Mayser fails to disclose an acceleration operator control element 1 a that provides tactile response that includes a number of detents per revolution of a scroll wheel that is generated based on a user control context, as recited by Claims 1, 16, and 19. At most, Mayser's discloses that his acceleration operator control element la may include a "finely-graduated" encoder. Mayser fails to teach or suggest that the number of "graduations" of his encoder may be generated based on a user control context. In other words, Mayser's graduations are fixed and not adjustable.”;
“none of the cited references, taken either singly or in combination, teaches or suggests an acceleration operator control element that includes a braking mechanism that provides a tactile response that includes a level of resistance, as recited by Claims 4, 18, and 20. Furthermore, none of the cited references, taken either singly or in combination, teaches or suggests an acceleration operator control element that includes a haptic actuator that provides a tactile response that includes a haptic feedback pattern, as recited by Claims 4, 18, and 20.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. 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 Szczerba et al. (US 11,325,634 B1, henceforth Szczerba).
Regarding Claim 1, Mayser teaches the limitations: a method of controlling a component of a vehicle {Abstract}, comprising: detecting, by a control system of the vehicle {“a driver assistance system for a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration/deceleration”, ¶[0002]}, an actuation of a manual control assembly positioned on a steering controller of the vehicle {1a, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, Figs. 1-2}, wherein the manual control assembly is configured to receive a plurality of actuations and the actuation is one of the plurality of actuations {“acceleration operator control element 1a, the speed operator control element 2 and the distance operator control element 3, the left spoke 8 also exhibits a deactivation operator control element 4a, 4b in the form of a one-step increment encoder-that is, a push button”, ¶[0047]}; 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 {“an operator control device is provided, which is intended for a driver assistance system for a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration (this also includes a setpoint deceleration, i.e., a negative setpoint acceleration), and which exhibits an acceleration operator control element for inputting an additional acceleration”, ¶[0018]} and 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.”, ¶[0049]}; 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, 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 feedback from the increment encoder, which provides feedback when adjusting the acceleration: “the set acceleration may also be provided by way of a marking on the increment encoder, which belongs to the acceleration operator control element 1a and which is designed as a knurled wheel or roller.”, ¶[0047]; “finely graduated” increment encoding of knob 1a is mentioned in ¶[0046]}, the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of a 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.”, ¶[0033]},wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to the one or more values used to control operation of the component {operation of control elements 1a or 2 will adjust the acceleration and/or speed of the vehicle which will be reflected by one of the numerical values in displays 1b or 1c, ¶[0049]}; and upon receiving a user selection of the one or more values via the manual control assembly {since both 1a and 2 can be knurled wheel control elements, ¶[0046], 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 user selection {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.”, ¶[0017]}.
Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context.
However, Szczerba explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context {number of detents depends on context related to driver or vehicle: “magnetorheological fluid that creates environment (or context) specific detents and force(s) relative to the system or feature selected by the driver…the detents in the adaptive steering wheel control may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings. Additionally, in a smart system, the MRF changes the resistant torque and the detents based on different drivers and HMI information”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
Mayser and Szczerba are analogous art because they both deal with control elements associated with 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 and Szczerba before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser to include the teachings of Szczerba to provide different levels of control for different vehicle systems using the same controller {Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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 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.”, ¶[0049]}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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.”, ¶[0049]}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Mayser does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: the tactile response further includes at least one of: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback pattern generated by a haptic actuator.
However, Szczerba explicitly recites the limitation: the tactile response further includes at least one of: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback pattern generated by a haptic actuator {number of detents depends on context related to driver or vehicle: “magnetorheological fluid that creates environment (or context) specific detents and force(s) relative to the system or feature selected by the driver…the detents in the adaptive steering wheel control may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings. Additionally, in a smart system, the MRF changes the resistant torque and the detents based on different drivers and HMI information”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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.”, ¶[0049]}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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 user selection of the one or more 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.”, ¶[0049]}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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.” ¶[0027])}, 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”, ¶[0024]; and similarly for the speed control element 2 in ¶[0027])}, the force of the actuation, the duration of the actuation, or the speed of the actuation.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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 Szczerba 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 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.”, ¶[0049]), whereas, the control elements are disposed on the left or right side of the steering wheel}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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, ¶[0046], and push buttons for activating/deactivating elements 4a and 4b, ¶[0047]}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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, ¶[0024], 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 Szczerba 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, ¶[0024], 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, Szczerba and Ha (US 9,776,513 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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 on Hall sensor: “The hall sensor 404 may detect the variation of the magnetic field intensity generated in the plurality of the magnets 344 and then may generate a magnetic field detection signal…The Hall effect is related to electrodes moved in a wire and a solid where the current flows. The magnetic field perpendicular to the wire where the current flows may allow the electrodes moved in the wire to be curved toward one surface. Therefore, negative electrodes are stacked on a surface of the wire, the surface of the wire is charged as a negative and, the other surface of the wire may be charged as a positive. Accordingly, the electric field may present to be across the wire, and this is defined as the Hall effect, and the hall electric field may be estimated by measuring a voltage difference (Hall voltage) across the wire. In addition, since an electrode drifty velocity is vD=E/8, by using the Hall effect, a drifty velocity of the moved electrode may be measured and whether of a negative or a positive may be determined.”, Col. 8, Lns. 16-49}.
Mayser, Szczerba and Ha are analogous art because they both deal with input controllers 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, Szczerba and Ha before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser and Szczerba to include the teachings of Ha to provide a user friendly steering wheel input device.
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}; detect an actuation of the manual control assembly {“a driver assistance system for a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration/deceleration”, ¶[0002]}, wherein the manual control assembly is capable of a plurality of actuations and the actuation is one of the plurality of actuations {“acceleration operator control element 1a, the speed operator control element 2 and the distance operator control element 3, the left spoke 8 also exhibits a deactivation operator control element 4a, 4b in the form of a one-step increment encoder-that is, a push button”, ¶[0047]}; 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 {“an operator control device is provided, which is intended for a driver assistance system for a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration (this also includes a setpoint deceleration, i.e., a negative setpoint acceleration), and which exhibits an acceleration operator control element for inputting an additional acceleration”, ¶[0018]} and 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.”, ¶[0049]}; adjust, based on the user control context, an operational state of the manual control assembly for receiving a user input, 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 feedback from the increment encoder, which provides feedback when adjusting the acceleration: “the set acceleration may also be provided by way of a marking on the increment encoder, which belongs to the acceleration operator control element 1a and which is designed as a knurled wheel or roller.”, ¶[0047]; “finely graduated” increment encoding of knob 1a is mentioned in ¶[0046]}, the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of a 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.”, ¶[0033]}, and wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to the one or more values used to control operation of the component {operation of control elements 1a or 2 will adjust the acceleration and/or speed of the vehicle which will be reflected by one of the numerical values in displays 1b or 1c, ¶[0049]}; and upon receiving a user selection of the one or more values via the manual control assembly {since both 1a and 2 can be knurled wheel control elements, ¶[0046], 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 user selection {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.”, ¶[0017]}.
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, Szczerba explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context {number of detents depends on context related to driver or vehicle: “magnetorheological fluid that creates environment (or context) specific detents and force(s) relative to the system or feature selected by the driver…the detents in the adaptive steering wheel control may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings. Additionally, in a smart system, the MRF changes the resistant torque and the detents based on different drivers and HMI information”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
The combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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 {“The term "controller" may refer to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor. The memory is configured to store program instructions, and the processor is specifically programmed to execute the program instructions to perform one or more processes 40 which are described further below. Moreover, it is understood that the below methods may be executed by an apparatus comprising the controller in conjunction with one or more other components,”, 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, Szczerba 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.”, ¶[0049]}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mayser, Szczerba and Ha discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and Ha does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: the tactile response further includes at least one of: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback pattern generated by a haptic actuator.
However, Szczerba explicitly recites the limitation: the tactile response further includes at least one of: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback pattern generated by a haptic actuator {number of detents depends on context related to driver or vehicle: “magnetorheological fluid that creates environment (or context) specific detents and force(s) relative to the system or feature selected by the driver…the detents in the adaptive steering wheel control may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings. Additionally, in a smart system, the MRF changes the resistant torque and the detents based on different drivers and HMI information”, 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”, ¶[0002]}, wherein the manual control assembly is capable of a plurality of actuations and the actuation is one of the plurality of actuations {“acceleration operator control element 1a, the speed operator control element 2 and the distance operator control element 3, the left spoke 8 also exhibits a deactivation operator control element 4a, 4b in the form of a one-step increment encoder-that is, a push button”, ¶[0047]}; 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 {“an operator control device is provided, which is intended for a driver assistance system for a motor vehicle and which exhibits a controller for controlling the acceleration of the motor vehicle as a function of a setpoint acceleration (this also includes a setpoint deceleration, i.e., a negative setpoint acceleration), and which exhibits an acceleration operator control element for inputting an additional acceleration”, ¶[0018]} and 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.”, ¶[0049]}; adjust, based on the user control context, an operational state of the manual control assembly for receiving a user input, 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 feedback from the increment encoder, which provides feedback when adjusting the acceleration: “the set acceleration may also be provided by way of a marking on the increment encoder, which belongs to the acceleration operator control element 1a and which is designed as a knurled wheel or roller.”, ¶[0047]; “finely graduated” increment encoding of knob 1a is mentioned in ¶[0046]}, the tactile response including a number of detents per revolution of a 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.”, ¶[0033]}, wherein the adjusted operational state corresponds to the one or more values used to control operation of the component {operation of control elements 1a or 2 will adjust the acceleration and/or speed of the vehicle which will be reflected by one of the numerical values in displays 1b or 1c, ¶[0049]}; and upon receiving a user selection of the one or more values via the manual control assembly {since both 1a and 2 can be knurled wheel control elements, ¶[0046], 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 user selection {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.”, ¶[0017]}.
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 [positioned on a steering controller; and] wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context.
However, Szczerba explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the number of detents is generated based on the user control context {number of detents depends on context related to driver or vehicle: “magnetorheological fluid that creates environment (or context) specific detents and force(s) relative to the system or feature selected by the driver…the detents in the adaptive steering wheel control may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings. Additionally, in a smart system, the MRF changes the resistant torque and the detents based on different drivers and HMI information”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
The combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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} [positioned on a steering controller] {programming for operating steering wheel – rotating ball - input device 102 in Fig. 2: “The term "controller" may refer to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor. The memory is configured to store program instructions, and the processor is specifically programmed to execute the program instructions to perform one or more processes 40 which are described further below. Moreover, it is understood that the below methods may be executed by an apparatus comprising the controller in conjunction with one or more other components,”, Col. 4, Lns. 35-43}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Mayser, Szczerba 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 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.”, ¶[0049]}.
The combination of Mayser and Ha does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: the tactile response further includes at least one of: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback pattern generated by a haptic actuator.
However, Szczerba explicitly recites the limitation: the tactile response further includes at least one of: a level of resistance of a braking mechanism of the scroll wheel; and a haptic feedback pattern generated by a haptic actuator {number of detents depends on context related to driver or vehicle: “magnetorheological fluid that creates environment (or context) specific detents and force(s) relative to the system or feature selected by the driver…the detents in the adaptive steering wheel control may be unique between changing audio volume compared to changing the HVAC settings. Additionally, in a smart system, the MRF changes the resistant torque and the detents based on different drivers and HMI information”, Col. 3, Lns. 23-40}.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayser, Szczerba and Badarnch (US 2003/0023353 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba discloses the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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 ¶[00176]}, 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.”, ¶[0036], 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, Szczerba and Badarnch are analogous art because they deal with input controllers 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, Szczerba and Badarnch before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser and Szczerba 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.”, ¶[0011]}.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayser, Szczerba and Eun (KR 20140040981 A).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mayser and Szczerba discloses the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. The combination of Mayser and Szczerba 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, Szczerba and Eun are analogous art because they deal with input controllers 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, Szczerba and Eun before them, to modify the teachings of Mayser and Szczerba 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2009/0259359 A1 – A vehicle system for haptic control and tactile feedback, in response to a variety of vehicle conditions and systems. Tactile feedback generated by a haptic generator “may include a variable frequency, a variable amplitude, and a variable pulse pattern….Other dynamic tactile feedback sensations may be provided to the user by the haptic generator 16, as desired.” {¶0011]}.
US 6,961,644 B2 – A haptic control system for a vehicle, in which “feedback supplied may be the same in amplitude, frequency, and shape or may differ depending on the particular function operated. For example, the tactile feedback provided as the operator adjusts the volume may have twice the frequency of the feedback provided as the operator adjusts the fan speed” {Col. 15, Lns. 33-38}.
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
Prosecution Insights