DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedeman et al. (US D470,445), in view of Sasaki (US 2019/0106139).
Wiedeman discloses the general structure of Claim 1 and 3, as annotated below:
PNG
media_image1.png
432
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
508
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wiedeman does not disclose wherein the left and right pair of grip portions illuminate in a case in which a need for the vehicle occupant to grip the left and right pair of grip portions arises (claim 1).
Sasaki teaches wherein the left and right pair of grip portions (portions of 83 nearest respective 81, 82) illuminate (i.e., 41) in a case (i.e., conditional limitation) in which a need for the vehicle occupant to grip the left and right pair of grip portions arises (as disclosed by para. 44, illumination prompts the operator to grip the grip portions 83); and further teaches wherein a steering wheel switch (2, para. 26) is provided at (the scope of the phrasing “at” includes “near”) at least one of the upper right perimeter portion or the upper left perimeter portion (fig. 1A shows the claimed configuration, where each of 2 is near respective upper right and left portions of 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the illumination and/or switch as taught by Sasaki, in combination with the steering wheel structure as disclosed by Wiedeman, for the expected benefit of increased user safety and/or increased functionality.
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedeman et al. (US D470,445) and Sasaki (US 2019/0106139), in view of McKinzie et al. (US 10,442,455).
Wiedeman’s disclosure is drawn to a steering wheel design, and is therefore silent regarding the limitations of claim 4 and 7-8. However, it was well-known in the art that steering wheels were configured for attachment to vehicle columns in order to provide operational functionality to the vehicle steering mechanism.
McKinzie teaches the following:
4. a column portion (22) that projects toward a vehicle rear (figs. 3, 5) from an instrument panel (12), wherein the base portion (50) is turnably attached (i.e., user turns grips 28, which are rotationally secured to 20) to the column portion (22).
7. a display device (48) for a vehicle that displays information, the display device being disposed between the left and right pair of grip portions and an instrument panel (fig. 3 shows 48 between a left grip portion and the instrument panel, and between a right grip portion and the instrument panel).
8. wherein the steering wheel is movable in a vehicle front-rear direction between a usage position (fig. 3), at which the vehicle occupant may steer and the display device and the left and right pair of grip portions are spaced apart in the vehicle front-rear direction, and a stowed position (fig. 1), at which the left and right pair of grip portions touch against the display device (col. 5, line 37-col. 6, line 3).
It would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the structure of McKinzie, including the column portion, display device, and moving functionality, with the steering wheel design of Wiedeman, for the expected benefit of providing increased information and/or adjustability to the user, both well-known advantages in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedeman et al. (US D470,445), Sasaki (US 2019/0106139), and McKinzie et al. (US 10,442,455), in view of Lubischer et al. (US 10,343,706).
Wiedeman is silent regarding the limitations of claim 5.
Lubischer teaches a sensor (36) that is configured to detect the vehicle occupant (i.e., disclosed as detecting if the driver is in position to safely retake control of the vehicle) is provided at (i.e., near) a distal end portion of the column portion (i.e., disclosed as positioned on steering column shaft 16; see also fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the sensor of Lubischer in combination with the steering wheel of the prior art, for the expected benefit of an enhanced user experience and/or improved user safety.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedeman et al. (US D470,445), Sasaki (US 2019/0106139), and McKinzie et al. (US 10,442,455), in view of Nakajima (US 2020/0353971).
Wiedeman does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Nakajima teaches an air blowing hole (12D) that is configured to blow air toward the vehicle rear (fig. 2; para. 52) is provided at a distal end portion (fig. 1) of the column portion (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the air blowing structure of Nakajima with the steering wheel structure of Wiedeman, for the expected benefit of increased user comfort and/or usability. However, even in absence of the express motivation to combine, the combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Shibata et al. (US 2021/0107358) is the closest prior art regarding the latter limitations of claim 9, and teaches a display device that includes a right side display portion disposed to a vehicle front of a right side portion of the steering wheel and is angled to a vehicle rear side toward the right side, and a left side display portion disposed to the vehicle front of a left side portion of the steering wheel and is angled to the vehicle rear side toward the left side (i.e., clearly shown in figs. 1-2); but does not disclose wherein an angle of the right side display portion relative to the vehicle width direction and an angle of the upper right steering portion relative to the vehicle width direction are substantially the same, and an angle of the left side display portion relative to the vehicle width direction and an angle of the upper left steering portion relative to the vehicle width direction are substantially the same, as claimed.
Further, to modify the prior art exactly as Applicant dislcoses, such as to combine Wiedeman and Shibata to arrive at the claimed arrangement, would be improper hindsight and require the use of Applicant’s specification as a blueprint for rejection.
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 T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Prosecution Insights