DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 9 and 14 have been canceled through a preliminary amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10, 13, and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation, "at least 70%", and the claim also recites, "at least 40%", which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Claim 13 recites, “…the vehicle support column is at least one of adjustable relative to the vehicle body by being pivotable or radially displaceable relative to the vehicle body.” The sentence structure is confusing and ambiguous. As best understood, Examiner interprets claim 13 to read as follows for the purpose of examination, “…the vehicle support column is adjustable relative to the vehicle body by being at least pivotable and/or radially displaceable relative to the vehicle body.”
Claims 20 – 22 are also indefinite, as depending from a rejected parent claim (see above).
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 – 7, 10 – 13, and 17 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 2019/0135332 A1 (Cimatti) in view of DE 102020100016 A1 (Vanel et al) and further in view of US Pub 2017/0072984 A1 (Gong).
Regarding claim 1, Cimatti discloses [a steering system 4 for a vehicle 1] (Fig. 1, paragraph 0019), [the steering system comprising a steering system support column 21] (Annotated Fig. 5a, below) and [a steering wheel arrangement having a central axis 13] (e.g., an arrangement shown in Fig. 5a);
wherein the steering wheel arrangement comprises
[a steering wheel 6 having a steering wheel rim 15 and at least one spoke SPK] (Fig. 5a), [a steering wheel hub H fixedly connected with the steering wheel and extending from the steering wheel towards a dashboard of the vehicle, the steering wheel hub and the steering wheel being rotatable about the central axis] (Fig. 5a, paragraph 0024 discloses the steering wheel rim of the steering wheel is mounted so as to rotate around the central axis),
[a torque feedback device 7 including an electric machine 16 having a rotor 18 and a stator 17, the rotor being attached to the steering wheel hub and being rotatable about the central axis] (Fig. 5a, paragraph 0025 discloses the rotor is mechanically connected to the steering wheel) and [the stator being fixedly attached to the steering system support column 21 which is non-rotatable about the central axis] (paragraph 0025 discloses the stator does not rotate; paragraph 0029 discloses the steering system support column is rigidly connected to the stator), and
[a steering wheel center part 14] (Fig. 5a), [the steering wheel center part being fixedly connected with the steering system support column or the stator so as to be non-rotatable about the central axis] (paragraph 0027 discloses the steering wheel center part being rigidly constrained to the stator);
wherein [the steering wheel arrangement is column stalk control free] (Fig. 5a), and wherein the [steering system is moveable so that the steering wheel arrangement is reversibly retractable in a direction towards the dashboard of the vehicle and extendable in a direction away from the dashboard of the vehicle] (paragraphs 0029 – 0031); however, Cimatti does not explicitly disclose specific shapes of the steering wheel or that the steering wheel center part comprises an airbag.
Vanel et al discloses [a trim element 10, which is also disclosed as an instrument panel] (paragraph 0016; understood as representing a dashboard) and [a steering wheel 14] (Fig. 3) wherein [a rear surface of the steering wheel that faces the dashboard of the vehicle is formed at least partially complementary to a dashboard front surface facing the rear surface of the steering wheel] (Figs. 1 and 2); and wherein [the steering wheel rim has a non-planar shape] (Fig. 5), wherein at least one portion of the steering wheel rim is curved towards the dashboard of the vehicle (Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0042 – 0043). Vanel et al further discloses [an automatic driving configuration in which the steering wheel is in a retracted configuration] (paragraph 0019), and that [in the automatic driving configuration, the steering wheel is folded onto the trim element 10] (paragraph 0093; Examiner interprets the automatic driving configuration as directly related to the steering wheel being folded onto the trim element 10 as the steering wheel being in a completely retracted state and the rear surface of the steering wheel that faces the dashboard abuts the dashboard front surface facing the rear surface of the steering wheel).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the steering wheel rim of Vanel et al with the steering system of Cimatti with a reasonable expectation of success because shaping the steering wheel to be complementary to the dashboard would provide a more compact, and aesthetically pleasing, design when stowing the steering wheel into the dashboard as disclosed by Vanel in paragraphs 0007 – 0010.
Cimatti, as modified above does not explicitly disclose that the steering wheel center part comprises an airbag. Gong discloses [a steering wheel center part 2] (Fig. 3; disclosed as “an operating part” in paragraph 0026), [including an airbag module 6 arranged inside the steering wheel center part 2] (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0032) being provided with [a plurality of steering wheel controls 24] (Fig. 2; disclosed as “a plurality of control keys” in paragraph 0030). Gong also discloses in Fig. 4 that the airbag module is located offset from the central axis of the steering wheel arrangement.
Gong further discloses the plurality of steering wheel controls 24 includes, “display control keys, phone control keys, and control keys for an automobile lamp, a speaker and a wiper, which are specifically a main menu display key, left and right direction keys, up and down direction keys, enter and exit keys, left and right turn lamp control keys, left and right speaker control keys, control keys for big and small lamps, control keys for dipped and bean lamps, a driving lamp control key, a wiper on-off control key, a three-gear speed control wiper speed control key, and phone answer or hang-up keys, and so one”.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the steering wheel center part 2 of Gong with the steering system of Cimatti because one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed using known methods, and with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide an airbag, which Gong discloses in paragraph 0032 would form a cushion of protection to the upper body and the head of the driver when the automobile suffers a crash. The steering wheel center part 2 of Gong would also advantageously provide a plurality of steering wheel controls, which allow drivers to keep their eyes on the road while manipulating vehicle systems via the plurality of steering wheel controls. Gong discloses in paragraph 0031, that the steering wheel center part 2 “meets the driver’s utility requirements of operating the automobile conveniently and quickly, and makes the function of the steering wheel to be more personalized”.
PNG
media_image1.png
569
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cimatti as modified above discloses all limitations, including the steering system wherein [the steering wheel controls comprise at least one of turn signal controls, light controls, at least one horn control, driver aid controls, infotainment controls, wiper controls, or cruise controls] (see claim 1 rejection above, specifically Gong’s further disclosure of the plurality of steering wheel controls).
Regarding claim 3, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system wherein [the steering wheel controls comprise at least one of single click push buttons, multiple click push buttons, touch sensitive buttons, analogous rotary buttons, digital rotary buttons, monostable levers, or multistable levers] (one skilled in the art would recognize that the steering wheel controls 24 in Fig. 2 of Gong are comprised of at least one of the claimed elements).
Regarding claim 4, Cimatti as modified above discloses all limitations, including the steering system wherein at least one additional control is arranged on the steering wheel (see claim 1 rejection above, specifically Gong’s further disclosure of the plurality of steering wheel controls).
Regarding claim 5, Cimatti further discloses the steering system wherein [the steering system is axially moveable along the central axis] (Cimatti; Fig. 5a and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claims 6, 18, and 19, Cimatti further discloses [the steering system wherein the steering wheel arrangement has a retraction travel between 50 mm and 150 mm or between 60-120mm or between 80-100mm] (Cimatti discloses in paragraph 0044 that the steering system is axially moveable all the way from 0 mm through all intermediary values up to 250 mm along the central axis, therefore including values within the claimed ranges of retraction travel, in effect the entirety of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Cimatti as modified above discloses all limitations, including the steering system wherein [the airbag module is located offset from the central axis of the steering wheel arrangement] (see claim 1 rejection above, specifically Gong’s disclosure in Fig. 4 regarding the location of the airbag module).
Regarding claims 10, 20, 21, and 22, Cimatti as modified above discloses all limitations, including the steering system wherein in a completely retracted state of the steering wheel arrangement the rear surface of the steering wheel abuts the front surface of the dashboard (see claim 1 rejection, specifically the disclosure of Vanel et al regarding the automatic driving configuration of the steering wheel), but does not explicitly disclose that 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% of the rear surface of the steering wheel abuts the dashboard front surface.
Recognizing that a percentage of the rear surface of the steering wheel that abuts the dashboard (as result effective variable) is directly correlated to the steering wheel being in a completely retracted state, which is a desirable characteristic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% of the rear surface of the steering wheel abut the dashboard in a completely retracted state since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.05 - II - Routine Optimization.
Regarding claim 11, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system wherein [the rotor is an outer rotor and the stator is an inner stator] (Cimatti; Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 12, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system wherein [the steering system support column 21 forms an inner member 24] (Cimatti; paragraph 0029) of [a tubular telescope arrangement] (e.g., an arrangement comprising elements 21, 22, and 24), wherein [the inner member is translationally movable, non-rotatable, and non-pivotable relative to an outer member 22 of the tubular telescope arrangement] (Fig. 5a and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system according to claim 12, wherein Cimatti further teaches the outer member 22 of the tubular telescope arrangement is [a vehicle support column via which the steering system support column 21 is attached to a vehicle body] (paragraph 0030 recites, the outer member 22 is provided with a bracket 25, which is used to fix the outer member 22, hence, the steering system support column 21, to the dashboard of the vehicle 1), and wherein [the vehicle support column is at least one of adjustable relative to the vehicle body by being pivotable or radially displaceable relative to the vehicle body] (paragraph 0034 discloses that the bracket 25 can be alternately placed, which allows for the vehicle support column to be adjustable relative to the vehicle body by being at least pivotable and/or radially displaceable relative to the vehicle body).
Regarding claim 17, Cimatti as modified above discloses all limitations, including the steering system according to claim 4, wherein [at least one additional control is arranged on the at least one spoke] (see rejection of claim 4, depending on claim 1, specifically Gong’s further disclosure of the plurality of steering wheel controls in the claim 1 rejection).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0135332 A1 (Cimatti) in view of DE 102020100016 A1 (Vanel et al), further in view of US 2017/0072984 A1 (Gong), and further in view of US Pat 5,152,358 (Kozuka).
Regarding claim 8, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system wherein the airbag module is arranged on the steering wheel center part, but does not explicitly disclose that the airbag module is non-parallel to the central axis of the steering wheel arrangement.
Kozuka discloses an airbag module arranged on a steering wheel center part in such a way that an airbag module central axis L2 is non-parallel to a central axis L1 (e.g., angle θ in Fig. 12) of a steering wheel arrangement (Figs. 10 – 12; col. 8, lines 37 – 46). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the airbag module of Kozuka arranged on the steering wheel center part of Cimatti, as modified above, such that the airbag module central axis would be non-parallel to the central axis of the steering wheel arrangement. One would be motivated to do so because finding the optimal angle at which the airbag module deploys an airbag is paramount in optimizing driver safety.
Furthermore, recognizing that an angle between an airbag module central axis and the central axis of the steering wheel arrangement (as a result effective variable) is directly correlated to driver safety, which is a desirable characteristic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the angle between the airbag module central axis and the central axis of the steering wheel arrangement since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.05 - II - Routine Optimization.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0135332 A1 (Cimatti) in view of DE 102020100016 A1 (Vanel et al), further in view of US 2017/0072984 A1 (Gong), and further in view of US 2018/0336329 A1 (Walford).
Regarding claim 15, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system but does not explicitly disclose that an area of the steering wheel rim has a display unit. Walford discloses a steering wheel rim wherein [at least one display unit 120 is provided in an area of the steering wheel rim] (Fig. 1, paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to additionally use the display unit of Walford with the steering system of Cimatti as modified above because doing so would provide improved visibility communication of alerts/warnings and additional security metrics as disclosed by Walford in paragraph 0006.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0135332 A1 (Cimatti) in view of DE 102020100016 A1 (Vanel et al), further in view of US 2017/0072984 A1 (Gong), and further in view of US 2020/0331492 A1 (Itoh).
Regarding claim 16, Cimatti as modified above discloses the steering system for the vehicle but does not disclose that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle. Itoh discloses [an autonomous driving control apparatus for a vehicle which allows the vehicle to perform autonomous driving] (paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the autonomous driving control apparatus of Itoh with the steering system for the vehicle of Cimatti, as modified in view of Vanel et al and further in view of Gong because doing so would allow an operator to advantageously automate tedious/boring driving, which would allow an operator to focus on other tasks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2007/0169007 A1 discloses a vehicle integrated control system for autonomous driving.
US 7,017,704 B2 discloses a steering device for a drive-by-wire vehicle.
US 2014/0277896 A1 discloses a substantially similar steering system.
US 2017/0297606 A1 and US 2019/0002010 A1 disclose a steering wheel wherein a substantial portion of a rear surface of the respective steering wheel abuts a dashboard of a vehicle.
US 2019/0016365 A1 discloses a telescoping steering arrangement.
US 11,498,615 B2 discloses a torque feedback assembly for a vehicle steering arrangement.
US-12233962-B2 – similar patent from the same inventor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/Tyler R. Ferguson/
Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611