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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 20-22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0115748 A1 to Tanaka and US 6,636,197 B1 to Goldenberg et al. (Goldenberg).
As to claim 1, Tanaka discloses a dial controller (1001) for a vehicle(see Fig. 3; Par. 0035]) comprising:
a rotatable dial (23) that is (i) rotatable about an axis of rotation (1001R or 1002R) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 31-32), and (iii) movable along a plane parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 31-32);
a first sensor (5) operably connected to the rotatable dial (23) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Par. 45, see also Pars. 31-32), the first sensor producing an output that is a function of rotation of the rotatable dial about the axis of rotation (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Par. 45, see also Pars. 31-32); and
a third sensor (7A-7D) operably connected to rotatable dial (23) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Par. 45, see also Pars. 31-32), the third sensor (7A-7D) producing an output that is a function of movement of the rotatable dial along the plane parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Par. 45, see also Pars. 31-32).
Tanaka does not expressly disclose (ii) the rotatable dial linearly movable along a line parallel to the axis of rotation, and a second sensor operably connected to the rotatable dial, the second sensor producing an output that is a function of movement of the rotatable dial along the line parallel to the axis of rotation.
Goldenberg discloses (ii) the rotatable dial linearly movable along a line parallel to the axis of rotation (axis A) (Figs. 1-2, Col. 6, lines 32-35, see also Col. 6, lines 36-55, Col. 7, lines 54-61), and a second sensor (88) operably connected to the rotatable dial (Figs. 1-2, Col. 6, lines 32-35, see also Col. 6, lines 36-55, Col. 7, lines 54-61), the second sensor (88) producing an output that is a function of movement of the rotatable dial along the line parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2, Col. 6, lines 32-35, see also Col. 6, lines 36-55, Col. 7, lines 54-61).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tanaka with the teaching of Goldenberg to provides the user with additional ways to select without having to remove the user’s grip as suggested by Goldenberg (Col. 6, lines 34-36).
As to claim 20, Tanaka in view of Goldenberg teaches the dial controller of claim 1 above. The limitation of claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 1. Tanaka further discloses a user interface for a vehicle comprising: a panel (dashboard surface) (Fig. 3, Par. 35), a display (Fig. 3, Par. 35); a dial controller (1001) in communication with the display (Fig. 3, Pars. 35, 39, 42), the dial controller comprising: a rotatable dial (23) disposed above the panel (Figs. 1-6, Par. 35).
As to claim 2, Tanaka discloses a selector button (10) proximate the rotatable dial (23) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, see also Pars. 31-32), the selector button (10) being depressible along the axis of rotation of the rotatable dial (23) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32); and a fourth sensor (6) operably connected to the selector button (10) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32), the fourth sensor (6) producing an output that is a function of depression of the selector button (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32).
As to claim 21, Tanaka in view of Goldenberg teaches the dial controller of claim 2 above. The limitation of claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 2.
As to claim 3, Tanaka discloses the rotatable dial (23) encircles the selector button (10) about the axis of rotation of the rotatable dial (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32); the selector button (10) intersects the axis of rotation of the rotatable dial (23) as the rotatable dial (23) rotates about the axis of rotation (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32), the selector button does not rotate about the axis of rotation (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32); and the selector button is biased along the axis of rotation away from being depressed (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 34, 44, 57, see also Pars. 31-32).
As to claim 22, Tanaka discloses the display (15) displays a menu of functions to use or control (Fig. 3, Pars. 35-37); rotation of the rotatable dial about the axis of rotation chooses a function from a menu of functions to use or control (Fig. 3, Pars. 35-37); and depression of the selector button confirms the choice and allows use or control of the chosen function (Fig. 3, Pars. 35-37, 44); and rotation of the rotatable dial about the axis of rotation controls a controllable aspect of the :hosen function (Figs. 3-5, Pars. 35-37, 44).
As to claim 26, Tanaka as modified discloses movement of the rotatable dial (Goldenberg’s 26) along the line parallel to the axis of rotation (Goldenberg’s axis A) of the rotatable dial (26) causes the display (14) to change from displaying one menu of functions to use or control to displaying another menu of functions to use or control (Goldenberg’s Fig. 1, Col. 6, lines 44-51, see also Col. 6, lines 16-31). See claim 1 motivation above.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0115748 A1 to Tanaka and US 6,636,197 B1 to Goldenberg et al. (Goldenberg); in view of US 2022/0024491 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee).
As to claim 27, Tanaka discloses the user interface is disposed within a vehicle (Fig. 3, Par. 37).
Tanaka as modified does not expressly disclose movement of the rotatable dial along the line parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotatable dial causes the dial controller to control movement of the vehicle; movement of the rotatable dial along the plane parallel to the axis of rotation causes the vehicle to move forward or reverse; and rotation of the rotatable dial about the axis of rotation causes the vehicle to turn.
Lee discloses movement of the rotatable dial along the line parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotatable dial causes the dial controller to control movement of the vehicle (Fig. 19, Pars. 206-208); movement of the rotatable dial along the plane parallel to the axis of rotation causes the vehicle to move forward or reverse (Fig. 19, Pars. 206-208); and rotation of the rotatable dial about the axis of rotation causes the vehicle to turn. (Fig. 19, Pars. 206-208)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tanaka with the teaching of Lee to provide an improved method for controlling a vehicle as suggested by Lee (Par. 6).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0115748 A1 to Tanaka and US 6,636,197 B1 to Goldenberg et al. (Goldenberg); in view of US 2020/0150766 A1 to Bagley et al. (Bagley).
As to claim 31, Tanaka as modified discloses the rotatable dial (Goldenberg’s 26), the selector button (Goldenberg’s 26), and the fourth sensor (Goldenberg’s 88) are all disposed above the panel (Goldenberg’s 12) (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5, lines 24-27, see also Col. 7, lines 51-61). See claim 1 motivation above.
Tanaka does not expressly disclose the display is disposed below but visible through the panel.
Bagley discloses the display (40) is disposed below but visible through the panel (14) (Figs. 1-2, Pars. 20, 23, 41).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tanaka with the teaching of Bagley to provide an intuitive inputting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-11, 13-15, 18-19, 24, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the cited prior arts teaches:
a stepper motor (62) comprising a shaft (64) and a gear (66) attached to the shaft (64) (Fig. 6); wherein, the rotatable dial (38) is attached to a first end of a cylinder (54) through which the axis of rotation (48) extends (Fig. 6); wherein, the cylinder (54) further comprises a second end and a gear (60) at the second end that is operably connected to the gear of the stepper motor (66)(Fig. 6); wherein, rotation of the rotatable dial (38) about the axis of rotation (48) causes the cylinder (54) to rotate and thus the gear (60) at the second end of the cylinder to rotate (Fig. 6); wherein, rotation of the gear (60) of the cylinder (54) causes the gear of the stepper motor (66) to rotate (Fig. 6), and rotation of the gear of the stepper motor (66) causes the shaft of the stepper motor (64) to rotate (Fig. 6); wherein, the first sensor (40) is positioned relative to the stepper motor (62) to generate an output that is a function of a fraction of a revolution of the shaft (64) (Fig. 6); wherein, the stepper motor (64) resists rotation of the shaft (64) and thus rotation of the rotatable dial (38) at each fraction of the revolution of the shaft (64) (Fig. 6); and wherein, a torque applied to the rotatable dial (38) is required to overcome the resistance (Fig. 6), with all the limitation cited in claim 6.
None of the cited prior arts teaches:
a second cylinder (72) through which the axis of rotation (48) of the rotatable dial (38) extends (Fig. 6), the second cylinder (72) comprising a first end (74) around which the rotatable dial (38) rotates and a second end (76) from which an extension (78) extends (Fig. 6), the extension (78) terminating in a sensor contacting surface (80) that contacts the second sensor (42) (Fig. 6); wherein, the second sensor (42) is a linear displacement sensor comprising (i) a fixed part (82) statically attached to a fixed base (46) of the dial controller (36) (Fig. 6) and (ii) a movable part (84) that contacts the sensor contacting surface (80) of the second cylinder (72) (Fig. 6), the movable part (84) being movable relative to the fixed part (82) (Fig. 6), and movement of the movable part (84) of the second sensor (42) relative to the fixed part (82) of the second sensor (42) alters the output of the second sensor (42) (Fig. 6); wherein, the movable part (84) is biased toward the sensor contacting surface (80) of the second cylinder (72) (Fig 6); and wherein, movement of the rotatable dial (38) along the line parallel (96) to the axis of rotation (48) of the rotatable dial (38) causes the second cylinder (72)to move and thus the movable part (84) of the second sensor (42) (Fig. 6), with all the limitation cited in claims 10 and 24, respectively.
None of the cited prior arts teaches:
a fixed base (46) to which the third sensor (44) is attached (Fig. 8); and a second base (106) to which the rotatable dial (38) is attached (Fig. 8), the second base (106) (i) comprising a sensor contacting surface (140) (Fig. 8) and (ii) movable along the plane (128) parallel to the axis of rotation (48) (Fig. 8); wherein, the third sensor (44) is a linear displacement sensor (Fig. 8) comprising (i) a fixed part (142) statically attached to the fixed base (46) (Fig. 8) and (ii) a movable part (144) that contacts the sensor contacting surface (140) of the second base (106) (Fig. 8), the movable part (144) being movable relative to the fixed part (142) (Fig. 8), and the output that the third sensor (44) produces is a function of position of the movable part (144) relative to the fixed part (142) (Fig. 8); wherein, the movable part (144) of the third sensor (44) is biased toward the sensor contacting surface (140) of the second base (106) (Fig. 8); and wherein, movement of the second base (106) along the plane (128) parallel to the axis of rotation (48) of the rotatable dial (38) causes the movable part (144) of the third sensor (44) to move (Fig. 8), with all the limitation cited in claims 13 and 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-7 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that “the Examiner’s rationale reflects impermissible hindsight reconstruction—imputing a motivation that the primary reference already fulfills” thereby “the Office's modification of TANAKA according to the described teachings of GOLDENBERG would render TANAKA'S inputting device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Tanaka teaches the rotatable dial (23) may be movable along a plane parallel to the axis of rotation (along 1001A) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 31-32), it does not expressly disclose movable along a line parallel to the axis of rotation. Goldenberg was relied upon the teaching of the rotatable dial that is movable along a line parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2, Col. 6, lines 32-35, see also Col. 6, lines 36-55, Col. 7, lines 54-61). In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Tanaka and Goldenberg do not teach “two mechanical selection mechanisms that operate along or parallel to the axis of rotation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka teaches two mechanical selection mechanisms (23 and 10) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 9, Pars. 31-32) and Goldenberg teaches that the rotatable selection mechanism that operates along or parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2, Col. 6, lines 32-35, see also Col. 6, lines 36-55, Col. 7, lines 54-61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9,334,949 B2 to Fett et al. teaches a rotary dial user interface device with a central button.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 4:00PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights