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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (Claims 1-12) and Species A (Figures 1-12) in the reply filed on October 1, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 72
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are indefinite because it does not include a transitional phrase thus it is unclear where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins. A transitional phrase defines the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.
Claim 2, line 2, recites “of at least a portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what structure the portion is a part of. At least a portion of what? Is the Applicant trying to refer to at least a portion of an outer surface of the shaft member?
Claim 2, line 2, recites “a die-molded state” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the die-molded state from claim 2 and the limitation of claim 1, line 3, recites “in a state in which a foamed resin or an elastomer is die-molded”. Both claims 1 and 2 both disclose a die-molded state. Are there two die-molded states? Should line 2 of claim 2 be amended to recite --the die-molded state--?
Claim 4, lines 1-2, recites “wherein the conductive member is an insert member for die-molding” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “for die-molding”. Can any insert member be “for die-molding”? Is there a specific structure that must be present for the conductive member to meet this claim limitation?
Claim 5, line 2, recites “a die-molded state” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the die-molded state from claim 5 and the limitation of claim 1, line 3, recites “in a state in which a foamed resin or an elastomer is die-molded”. Both claims 1 and 5 both disclose a die-molded state. Are there two die-molded states? Should line 2 of claim 5 be amended to recite --the die-molded state--?
Claim 7, line 2, recites “a die-molded state” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the die-molded state from claim 7 and the limitation of claim 1, line 3, recites “in a state in which a foamed resin or an elastomer is die-molded”. Both claims 1 and 7 both disclose a die-molded state. Are there two die-molded states? Should line 2 of claim 7 be amended to recite --the die-molded state--?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 2365119 Y; see Applicant provided machine translation) in view of Ishioroshi et al. (US 9,227,588 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a surface material, wrapped along a circumferential direction (along the circumference of a steering wheel) of a shaft member (a rim of a steering wheel) in a region of at least a portion of the shaft member,
wherein, in a state in which a material is die-molded (Paragraph 0004 discloses an injection molding process), a cross-sectional shape of a planar surface orthogonal to an axial direction of the shaft member is formed to be a C shape (see Paragraphs 0004 and 0011) or a U shape, and a parting line (the parting line disclosed in Paragraph 0004) is formed on an outer surface (Paragraph 0004 discloses the parting line being on an outer surface until the structure is installed on the steering wheel in reverse thus making the outer surface of the structure be against the outer surface of the steering wheel which then makes the outer surface of the structure be the inner surface of the structure), and
in a state of being wrapped around the shaft member, the parting line is disposed on a surface facing the shaft member (see Paragraph 0004).
Xu does not disclose that the surface material is made of a foamed resin or an elastomer.
Ishioroshi et al. teaches a rim portion (3) of a steering wheel that is cover with a synthetic resin such as foamed urethane (Column 8 / Lines 22-27).
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 material of Xu to be made of a foamed resin, as taught by Ishioroshi et al., for the purpose of providing a material that has a deformation quality thus can be viewed as being comfortable to grip by a user.
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses that the shaft member has a three-dimensional curved surface (a steering wheel is a three-dimensional curved structure thus the shaft member meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses that the shaft member is an annular member (steering wheels are circular thus are viewed as being annular).
Regarding claim 12, Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. discloses a shaft member unit, comprising:
the surface material as claimed in claim 1; and
the shaft member, in which the surface material is wrapped around an outer surface (the outer surface of the steering wheel).
Claims 2 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 2365119 Y; see Applicant provided machine translation) in view of Ishioroshi et al. (US 9,227,588 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haag et al. (US 6,512,202 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. discloses all of the claim limitation, see above, but does not disclose that a conductive member is fixed to an outer surface of at least a portion in a die-molded state.
Haag et al. teaches a conductive member (26, 28, 34, 36) that is fixed to a surface (see Figure 3) of at least a portion of a rim covering (30).
Haag et al. teaches insert molding a surface wrapping material for steering wheels with a conducting heating member (26, 28, 34, 36) on the inside or fixing a conducting heating member.
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 surface material of Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. to have a conductive member fixed to a surface of at least a portion of the surface material, as taught by Haag et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that allows the steering wheel to be heated thus providing additional comfort to the user. Once Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. is modified by Haag et al., the conductive member would be on the outer surface of the surface material in the die-molded state because the outer surface of Xu in the die-molded state becomes the inner surface of the surface material in the state of being wrapped around the shaft member.
Regarding claim 4, Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. and further in view of Haag et al. discloses that the conductive member is an insert member (the viewed conductive member of Haag et al. is viewed as being an insert member because it is viewed as being inserted in the steering wheel structure) for die-molding.
Claims 5-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 2365119 Y; see Applicant provided machine translation) in view of Ishioroshi et al. (US 9,227,588 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seiichi (JP 2016-169003 A; see Applicant provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose an engagement convex part protruding on the outer surface in a die-molded state, wherein the engagement convex part is engaged with the shaft member in a state of being wrapped around the shaft member.
Seiichi teaches an engagement convex part (the two vertically extending portions of 23 as shown in Figure 4d) protruding on a surface, wherein the engagement convex part is engaged with a shaft member (11) in a state of being wrapped around the shaft member.
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 surface material of Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. to have an engagement convex part protruding on a surface, and to have the engagement convex part be engaged with the shaft member in a state of being wrapped around the shaft member, as taught by Haag et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that allows the surface material to have a stronger connection with the shaft member thus aiding in preventing the surface material from being detached from the shaft member. Once Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. is modified by Seiichi, the engagement convex part would protrude from the outer surface in a die-molded state because the surface material of Xu is inverted when it is installed on the shaft member thus the engagement convex part would be on the outer surface of the surface material when in the die-molded state.
Regarding claim 6, Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. and further in view of Seiichi discloses that the engagement convex part is formed in at least one of a pair of ends (see the two vertical members of 23 in Figure 4d of Seiichi) serving as opening ends of the C shape or the U shape (the C-shape of Xu would be maintained after Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. is modified by Seiichi).
Regarding claim 7, Xu in view of Ishioroshi et al. and further in view of Seiichi discloses that the engagement convex part, in a die-molded state, at least extends along the axial direction at the pair of ends and is configured as a pair of flange parts protruding outward (as shown in Figure 4, the viewed pair of ends extend along an axial direction), and
in the state of being wrapped around the shaft member, the pair of flange parts are shaped to protrude toward the shaft member (see Figure 4d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henning et al. (US 2013/0276573 A1) discloses steering wheel that has a rim structure and a covering that has two edge sections that fit into a groove formed in the rim structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617