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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/646,535 filed on January 07, 2026.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klank (US 2016/0039457) in view of Aerts (US 20200039558 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klank discloses a method for generating and outputting an operating signal in a vehicle with a steering wheel (FIG. 4), the method comprising:
detecting a steering wheel angle (FIG.4, 420); and
generating and outputting the operating signal for control of a vehicle component or for a menu navigation of an on-board computer based at least in part on the detected steering wheel angle (FIG. 5, abstract, “the display device (120) is designed to determine, using the detected acceleration, a steering wheel rotational angle of the steering wheel (102) and, using the steering wheel rotational angle, to modify the data display.”).
Klank does not explicitly disclose, but Aerts teaches operating the vehicle at a standstill or in an autonomous driving mode (¶0028).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with the autonomous vehicle taught in Aerts with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in driver safety.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klank (US 2016/0039457) in view of Aerts (US 20200039558 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of TOKORO (JP 2023003050 A).
Regarding claim 2, Klank does not explicitly disclose, but further teaches wherein the vehicle used in accordance with method is equipped with a steer-by-wire steering system, and wherein a steering movement of the vehicle tires is decoupled from a steering movement of the steering wheel (page 28, lines 15-17).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steer by wire taught in TOKORO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a variable steering ratios for easier, faster, or more stable driving.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klank (US 2016/0039457) in view of Aerts (US 20200039558 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wagner (DE102013002358A1).
Regarding claim 3, Klank does not explicitly disclose but, Wagner teaches wherein, when using an actuator of the steering wheel, at predetermined angles of the steering wheel angle detent marks are inserted into the steering movement as haptic feedback, wherein an operating signal is generated and output when a detent mark is passed (page 02, lines 1-5, page 04, lines 16-24).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with haptic feedback taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted allowing and easier adaptation to the menu, from each of which a selection is made.
Regarding claim 4, Wagner further teaches wherein, when an end of the menu navigation or of a setting range of the vehicle component is reached by the steering movement of the steering wheel in a first direction, an actuator of the steering wheel prevents further rotation in the first direction by setting a counterforce to the steering movement (page 08, lines 12-20).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with haptic feedback taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted allowing and easier adaptation to the menu, from each of which a selection is made.
Regarding claim 5, Wagner further teaches wherein, when an end of the menu navigation or of a setting range of the vehicle component is reached by the steering movement of the steering wheel in a first direction, an actuator of the steering wheel prevents further rotation in the first direction by setting a counterforce to the steering movement (page 08, lines 12-20).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with haptic feedback taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted allowing and easier adaptation to the menu, from each of which a selection is made.
Claims 6-8, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klank (US 2016/0039457) in view of Aerts (US 20200039558 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of SHIMOMURA (JP 2004306758 A).
Regarding claim 6, Klank does not explicitly disclose but, SHIMOMURA teaches wherein the detected steering wheel angle is a part of a predetermined steering pattern (¶0018).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steering patterns taught in SHIMOMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an increase in vehicle control efficiency by an automatic adjustment of vehicle functions without the operator's hand.
Regarding claim 7, SHIMOMURA further teaches wherein the predetermined steering pattern is assigned to a predetermined operating function of a vehicle component (¶0018).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steering patterns taught in SHIMOMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an increase in vehicle control efficiency by an automatic adjustment of vehicle functions without the operator's hand.
Regarding claim 8, SHIMOMURA further teaches the method further comprising: detecting and storing a steering pattern that a user of the vehicle generates by a steering movement of the steering wheel; and assigning the stored steering pattern as the predetermined steering pattern of the predetermined operating function of the vehicle component (¶0018).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steering patterns taught in SHIMOMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an increase in vehicle control efficiency by an automatic adjustment of vehicle functions without the operator's hand.
Regarding claim 12, SHIMOMURA teaches the method further comprising: detecting and storing a steering pattern that a user of the vehicle generates by a steering movement of the steering wheel; and assigning the stored steering pattern as a predetermined steering pattern to an operating signal (¶0018).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steering patterns taught in SHIMOMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an increase in vehicle control efficiency by an automatic adjustment of vehicle functions without the operator's hand.
Regarding claim 13, SHIMOMURA teaches recognizing the predetermined steering pattern based at least in part on the detected steering angle (¶0018).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steering patterns taught in SHIMOMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an increase in vehicle control efficiency by an automatic adjustment of vehicle functions without the operator's hand.
Claims 9-11, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klank (US 2016/0039457) in view of Aerts (US 20200039558 A1) as applied to claim 1, SHIMOMURA (JP 2004306758 A), and further in view of TOKORO (JP 2023003050 A).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Klank does not explicitly disclose but, TOKORO teaches providing a graphical representation of the steering pattern as an output (page 028, lines 1-14).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with displaying a graphical representation taught in TOKORO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted better analyze driver behavior, improve vehicle performance, and enhance.
Regarding claim 10, SHIMOMURA teaches the method further comprising: detecting and storing a steering pattern that a user of the vehicle generates by a steering movement of the steering wheel; and assigning the stored steering pattern as a predetermined steering pattern to an operating signal (¶0018).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Klank does not explicitly disclose, but Tokoro further teaches wherein the vehicle used in accordance with method is equipped with a steer-by-wire steering system, and wherein a steering movement of the vehicle tires is decoupled from a steering movement of the steering wheel (page 28, lines 15-17).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steer by wire taught in TOKORO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a variable steering ratios for easier, faster, or more stable driving.
Regarding claim 19, Tokoro further teaches non-transitory storage medium containing program code for performing the method according to claim 1 when the program code is executed on a processor, a computer, or programmable hardware (page 32, lines 24-28).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with steer by wire taught in TOKORO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a variable steering ratios for easier, faster, or more stable driving.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klank (US 2016/0039457) in view of Aerts (US 20200039558 A1) as applied to claim 1, SHIMOMURA (JP 2004306758 A), and further in view of Wagner (DE102013002358A1).
Regarding claim 16, Klank does not explicitly disclose but, Wagner teaches wherein, when using an actuator of the steering wheel, at predetermined angles of the steering wheel angle detent marks are inserted into the steering movement as haptic feedback, wherein an operating signal is generated and output when a detent mark is passed (page 02, lines 1-5, page 04, lines 16-24).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with the haptic feedback taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted operating interface for a motor vehicle, which the driver can handle safely and accurately with a minimum of eye contact.
Regarding claim 17, Wanger teaches, wherein, when using an actuator of the steering wheel, at predetermined angles of the steering wheel angle detent marks are inserted into the steering movement as haptic feedback, wherein an operating signal is generated and output when a detent mark is passed (page 02, lines 1-5, page 04, lines 16-24).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with the haptic feedback taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted operating interface for a motor vehicle, which the driver can handle safely and accurately with a minimum of eye contact.
Regarding claim 18, Wagner teaches wherein, when an end of the menu navigation or of a setting range of the vehicle component is reached by the steering movement of the steering wheel in a first direction, an actuator of the steering wheel prevents further rotation in the first direction by setting a counterforce to the steering movement page 08, lines 12-20).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system disclosed in Klank with the haptic feedback taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted operating interface for a motor vehicle, which the driver can handle safely and accurately with a minimum of eye contact.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In particular the applicant argues:
A) Klank does not disclose generating and outputting an operating signal for a menu navigation of
an on-board computer. Instead, it appears that the rejection is based on identifying the data display device (124) as a "vehicle component" and the modification of the display (225) as an "operating signal for control" of the display device/"vehicle component", based on the Abstract of Klank that refers to "using the steering wheel rotational angle, to modify the data display.
In response to A) examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued. The limitation in claim 1 recites “generating and outputting the operating signal for control of a vehicle component or “emphasis added” for a menu navigation …”. The recited limitation includes an or statement which means one or the other. Thus, examiner interprets this limitation as the control of a vehicle component ..i.e. the steering wheel.
B) It was admitted that Klank does not disclose modifying the display (225) based on the detected steering wheel angle when the vehicle is at a standstill or in an autonomous driving mode. The rejection relies on Aerts to supply this missing limitation. The steering wheel (200) of Aerts includes a user interface (202) on the steering wheel that the driver can use to interact with a menu of controls based on the driver's gestures at the interface. Aerts [0014]. According to the cited excerpt, Aerts further describes the use of multiple gestures when the vehicle supports autonomous driving. [0028]. Aerts does not disclose determining a steering wheel angle in any manner. Thus, Aerts was cited simply for its disclosure of an autonomous driving mode for a vehicle with a steering wheel.
In response to applicant's argument B that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., modifying the display (225) based on the detected steering wheel angle when the vehicle is at a standstill or in an autonomous driving mode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). More specifically, the limitation recites “generating and outputting the operating signal for control of a vehicle component or for a menu navigation of an on-board computer based at least in part on the detected steering wheel angle”, however the limitation does not recite “modifying the display based on …vehicle is at a standstill or in an autonomous”.
C) It was admitted that Klank does not disclose modifying the display (225) based on the detected steering wheel angle when the vehicle is at a standstill or in an autonomous driving mode. The rejection relies on Aerts to supply this missing limitation. The steering wheel (200) of Aerts includes a user interface (202) on the steering wheel that the driver can use to interact with a menu of controls based on the driver's gestures at the interface. Aerts [0014]. According to the cited excerpt, Aerts further describes the use of multiple gestures when the vehicle supports autonomous driving. [0028]. Aerts does not disclose determining a steering wheel angle in any manner. Thus, Aerts was cited simply for its disclosure of an autonomous driving mode for a vehicle with a steering wheel.
In response to C) examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued. Klank discloses the display device (120) is designed to determine, using the detected acceleration, a steering wheel rotational angle of the steering wheel (102) and, using the steering wheel rotational angle, to modify the data display.”). Klank does not explicitly disclose standsill or autonomous driving. Alert teaches an interactive user interface for a steering wheel is provided. A user interface is provided on one or more portions of the steering wheel... The user interface recognizes gesture movements made by a user thereon. The user interface allows navigation of a set of controls associated with a menu provided through the user interface based on the recognized gesture movements... Furthermore, Alerts teaches an autonomous driving functionality. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more that yield predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the familiar autonomous vehicle functionality of Alerts with the display device (120) is designed to determine, using the detected acceleration, a steering wheel rotational angle of the steering wheel (102) and, using the steering wheel rotational angle because it does no more than yield predictable results of generating and outputting an operating signal in a vehicle with the steering wheel.
D) The reverse control device 42 sets the target virtual steering angle a.sub.2.sup.* of the trailer 12 based on the operating position or operating amount of the steering wheel." Tokoro, p. 28, lns. 22-26 (emphasis added). The steering wheel is not decoupled form the front wheels in Tokoro because the virtual steering angle implemented by the reverse control device (42) is determined by the "operating position or operating amount of the steering wheel."
As explained in the present application, decoupling the movement of the steering wheel from the movement of the vehicle tires means that "the steering wheel can be turned without affecting the actual steering angle of the wheels". Specification, p. 4, lns. 9-19. In Tokoro, turning the steering wheel always affects the actual steering of the front wheels. Since Tokoro does not disclose decoupling, as required by claim 2, the combination of Tokoro with Klank/Aerts fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
In response to D) examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued. Tokoro teaches steering by wire type steering mechanism … the front wheels and the steering wheel can be moved independently of each other. Incidentally, the front wheels 11F of the tractor 11 are steered by driving a steering motor. Based on this disclosure, examiner construes that the steering wheel and the wheels are decoupled.
E) Klank/Aerts combination modified by Wagner. Wager was said to teach "using an actuator of the steering wheel, at predetermined angles of the steering wheel angle detent marks are inserted into the steering movement." Wagner does not disclose adding detents to the rotation of a steering wheel. Wagner discloses scroll wheels (2) mounted on a steering wheel (1) in which the scroll wheels are part of a control interface. Wagner, p. 7, lns. 9-20. Wagner describes setting haptic marker rotation positions of the scroll wheel (2), not the steering wheel (1).
In response to E) examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued “steering wheel angle detent marks are inserted into the steering movement as haptic feedback”. Wager in at least page 4, lines 16-24 teaches the argued limitation “providing feedback means for generating a haptic feedback …
detecting a rotation of the actuating body that 20 discrete marker rotational positions of the Actuator can be detected by the haptic 21 feedback, the distribution of the marker rotational positions …Instead of simply replicating a conventional actuator body with 23 mechanically defined detent positions, this allows a detailed adaptation to the menu, from 24 each of which a selection is made.”
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ogasawara (US 20240068833 A1) discloses A vehicle display device includes a display that is mounted on a vehicle and superimposes and displays an image on a real landscape in front with respect to a front windshield, a controller that controls the display, and a position information acquisition unit that acquires a position of a preceding vehicle. The controller calculates a first virtual straight line that connects the position of the preceding vehicle and a position of the vehicle. When the controller determines that the first virtual straight line is along a straight direction of the vehicle, the controller displays a marker image at a position below the preceding vehicle. When the controller determines that the first virtual straight line is inclined with respect to the straight direction, the controller performs display movement control to display the marker image so as to be shifted from the position below the preceding vehicle (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights