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
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US. Pat. 5,977,494) in view of Funahashi (US20180201296).
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches a switch device, comprising: a support 33 adapted to be coupled to a steering shaft configured to change a traveling direction of a vehicle; a switch 35 coupled to the support and configured to output a signal in accordance with an operation of a driver of the vehicle (col. 4, lines 10-20); a processing unit 39 including a connector 67 configured to accept connection 93 of a cable 91 for transmitting the signal (Fig. 5 and col. 6, lines 15-20), and a processor 39 configured to process the signal (col. 6, lines 15-20); and at least one snap-fit structure 123 configured to allow attachment and detachment of the processing unit from below the support (the latching element 123 allow attachment and detachment of the processing unit, Fig. 7 and col. 6, lines 50-67), wherein the connector faces downward (the connector 67 faces downward with respect the support 33, see Fig. 1). Sano does not teach the snap fit structure attaching the process below the support under a condition that the support is coupled to the steering shaft, and the connector facing downward under a condition that the support is coupled to the steering shaft. However, Funahashi teaches a similar switch device that comprises a support (3, 33), a processing unit (20, 31), a connector 53 and snap-fit structure (78-81, 83, 85), wherein when the support is already coupled to the steering shaft (Figs. 1, 2, 9-13 and paragraphs 34, 35, 49), the processing unit is attached to it by the snap-fit structure (Figs. 14-25 and paragraphs 56-64), and because the snap-fits fix the orientation of the accommodation case “the support” relative to the column of the connector (paragraphs 58, 71-78) that belongs to the processing unit is necessarily oriented downward ,allowing a cable to be connected from below (paragraphs 44, 78). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the connector of the processing unit downward so that the cable can be easily plugged in from below the steering column.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano and Funahashi as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee (US20210284085).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sano teaches the switch device wherein a center position of the processing unit 39 including snap-fit structure 123 in a width direction that corresponds to a left-right direction of the vehicle, is located closer to a door adjacent to a driver's seat or passenger’s seat (depending on whether the processing unit is located on left or right of the steering wheel) of the vehicle than a rotation axis of the steering shaft, under the condition that the support is coupled to the steering shaft (the processing unit 39 positioned to one lateral side of the steering wheel, and offset relative to the rotation axis of the steering shaft, and this make the center of the processing unit 39 and the snap-fit structure 123 inherently closer to the lateral side of the vehicle body than the rotation axis of the steering shaft, see annotated figure below). Sano does not expressly teach that lateral side on which the processing unit is arranged corresponds to the door adjacent to driver’s seat. However, Lee teaches a similar switch device with a controlling unit 114 that is positioned on the lateral side of the steering wheel that is corresponds to the door adjacent to driver’s seat (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the laterally offset processing unit of Sano on the driver side of the steering wheel as taught by Lee to improve driver reach and accessibility, and to conform to standard driver-oriented steering column control layouts.
PNG
media_image1.png
737
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, YAMAZAKI teaches a switch device, comprising:a support 1 adapted to be coupled to a steering shaft 1 configured to change a traveling direction of a vehicle; a switch (2, 3) coupled to the support and configured to output a signal in accordance with an operation of a driver of the vehicle; a processing unit 4 including a connector (18, 24) configured to accept connection of a cable for transmitting the signal, and a processor configured to process the signal; and at least one snap-fit structure (17, 22) configured to allow attachment and detachment of the processing unit from below the support under a condition that the switch is still coupled to the support is coupled to the steering shaft, wherein the connector faces downward under a condition that the processing unit is attached to the support is coupled to the steering shaft (Figs. 1-4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M SAEED whose telephone number is (571)270-7976. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/AHMED M SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights