DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action regarding application number 18/722,351, filed June 20, 2024, is in response to the applicants arguments and amendments filed May 18, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 35 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, 22, 24, 26-28, and 35-36 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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 Arguments
The applicants arguments and amendments to the application have overcome some of the objections and rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final action mailed March 17, 2026. Applicant amendments to the specification have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous drawing objection, therefore the objections are withdrawn. Applicants amendments to the specification have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous objection through the inclusion of a replacement abstract, therefore the objections are withdrawn. Applicants amendments to claims 1, 22, and 26 have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections through the inclusion of at least “a plurality of inductive sensors … determine at least one of a magnitude of a force applied to the vehicle interface or a location of the force applied to the vehicle interface based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors” therefore the rejections are withdrawn. However as this changes the scope of the claims, new art rejections have been made based on the changes in scope. Additionally the applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive for the reasons seen below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 22, 26, and specifically the newly amended subject matter 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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, 22, 24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guibbert (US-20170016255) in view of Verner (US 20140125124).
Regarding claim 1, Guibbert teaches a system for triggering a functionality of a vehicle comprising (Paragraph [0020], "the detection device according to the invention can provide reliable and robust detection of the intention to unlock or lock the vehicle")
an inductive sensor (Paragraph [0050], "the invention proposes that said contact detection element 100 comprise an inductive sensor")
a vehicle interface (Paragraph [0070], "The elastically deformable area of the handle 10 is made of a flexible material, for example the same material as the first part 52 (Bayblend®, for example), and its thickness e1 is less than the thickness e0 of the second outer surface S2 of the handle 10 located around said elastically deformable area,” here the vehicle handle with a button is an interface )
a conductive target coupled to the vehicle interface, each conductive target configured to move with the vehicle interface between a first position and a second position relative to an inductive sensor (Paragraph [0071], “The non-magnetic metal target 40 is adapted to move along the axis Y-Y′. Said non-magnetic metal target 40 is made, for example, of aluminum or any other non-magnetic metal," here the metal target moves along the y-y axis to a plurality of positions)
the first position having a first inductance and the second position having a second inductance different from the first inductance (Paragraph [0088-0089], "For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm. This movement from the initial distance d0 to the final distance d1 modifies the inductance of the coil 20. The variation in the inductance of said coil 20 is therefore representative of the user's pressure on the handle 10,” here the target moves between a plurality of positional distances which changes the inductance)
and a controller configured to receive a signal from the inductive sensor indicative of changes between the first inductance and the second inductance (Paragraph [0078], "The control means 60′ consist of a microcontroller 60′, and the comparison means M3 are, for example, integrated into the microcontroller 60′, supplied with a voltage Vcc.")
determine at least one of a magnitude of a force applied to the vehicle interface or a location of the force applied to the vehicle interface (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’)
and trigger the functionality of the vehicle based on the at least one of the magnitude of the force or the location of the force (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’).
However while Guibbert teaches an inductive sensor paired with a conductive target and triggering a functionality of the vehicle.
Guibbert does not explicitly teach a plurality of inductive sensors, a plurality of conductive targets coupled to the vehicle interface configured to move with the vehicle interface between a first position and a second position relative to a respective one of the plurality of inductive sensors, determine at least one of a magnitude of a force applied to the vehicle interface or a location of the force applied to the vehicle interface based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors.
Verner teaches a vehicle horn control assembly comprises a sensor assembly and a controller including
a plurality of inductive sensors and a plurality of conductive targets coupled to the vehicle interface (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34. The number of sensors 42 in each of the sensor zones 40 can be a single sensor 42 up to any suitable amount of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes five sensors 42. However, the sensor zones 40 can have different numbers of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 can include one or more tactile sensors as known in the art. As understood in the art and as illustrated in FIG. 5, as the force-induced pressure applied to a tactile sensor 42 is increased, the voltage output by that tactile sensor can also be configured to increase proportionately. For instance, the sensors 42 can each be a piezoelectric element or any other suitable type of sensor (e.g., strain gauge, capacitance sensor, or force sensor) that generates a voltage when a strain is imposed on the element,” here the system is teaching the use of a plurality of sensors coupled to the vehicle interface/steering wheel, and while Verner is not explicitly reciting inductive sensors with conductive targets, Verner recites that any suitable sensor may be substituted here, such as the inductive sensors with conductive targets as taught by Guibbert)
determine at least one of a magnitude of a force applied to the vehicle interface or a location of the force applied to the vehicle interface (Paragraph [0022], “As understood in the art and as illustrated in FIG. 5, as the force-induced pressure applied to a tactile sensor 42 is increased, the voltage output by that tactile sensor can also be configured to increase proportionately,” here the system can determine a magnitude of a force applied based on a relative voltage of a sensor) (Paragraph [0029], “That is, the controller 34 determines, based on the respective pressure signals output by the individual sensors 42 in the sensor zones 40 over a period of time, a touching characteristic representing a manner in which a user typically touches the sensor assembly 20 to activate the vehicle horn 24 in step 210. In step 220, the controller 32 thus sets each respective pressure threshold for each sensor zone 40, or for each specific sensor 42 in each sensor zone 40, based on the user touching characteristic,” here the system can determine a magnitude of a force applied to a sensor and the location of the force)
based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors (Paragraph [0023], “Therefore, as discussed in more detail below, each of the sensor zones 40 can be configured to output a respective pressure signal having a value that is proportionate to the amount of pressure applied thereto.”) (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn” here the system is detecting a location and magnitude of pressure on the sensor based on the plurality of sensors)
and trigger the functionality of the vehicle based on the at least one of the magnitude of the force or the location of the force (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn”).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of inductive sensors, a plurality of conductive targets coupled to the vehicle interface configured to move with the vehicle interface between a first position and a second position relative to a respective one of the plurality of inductive sensors, determine at least one of a magnitude of a force applied to the vehicle interface or a location of the force applied to the vehicle interface based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Guibbert does not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes activating a horn.
Verner further teaches wherein the functionality includes activating a horn (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn”).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the functionality includes activating a horn of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Guibbert does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle interface comprises a steering wheel assembly that includes an airbag module.
Verner further teaches wherein the vehicle interface comprises a steering wheel assembly that includes an airbag module (Paragraph [0017], “As further shown in FIG. 2, the steering assembly 16 of the vehicle 10 will typically include an airbag assembly 22 mounted to a steering housing 23.”).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the vehicle interface comprises a steering wheel assembly that includes an airbag module of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of the conductive targets includes Cu tape (Paragraph [0071], “The non-magnetic metal target 40 is adapted to move along the axis Y-Y′. Said non-magnetic metal target 40 is made, for example, of aluminum or any other non-magnetic metal,” here the target is made of any non-magnetic metal such as Copper).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches wherein the signal indicates a measure of force applied to the vehicle interface (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’).
However Guibbert does not explicitly teach wherein the triggering the functionality comprises emitting a sound, and wherein a volume level of the sound is based on the measure of the force.
Verner further teaches wherein the triggering the functionality comprises emitting a sound, and wherein a volume level of the sound is based on the measure of the force (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn,” here the system is setting a threshold to detect a specific level of force applied to the detection area and in response to the force the vehicle emits a sound, the volume level in this case is binary, a noise is emitted when the force is great enough, and no noise is emitted when the force doesn’t exceed the threshold).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the triggering the functionality comprises emitting a sound, and wherein a volume level of the sound is based on the measure of the force of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches wherein the signal is indicative of at least a location of a force applied to the vehicle interface and wherein the functionality is based on the location of the force (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches wherein the signal is indicative of at least a location of a force applied to the vehicle interface and wherein the functionality is based on the location of the force (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’).
However Guibbert does not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes emitting a sound that comprises a broadcast direction based on the location of the force.
Verner further teaches wherein the functionality includes emitting a sound that comprises a broadcast direction based on the location of the force (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn,” here the system is detecting a force applied to the detection area, and in response to a force being detected in the specific location, the vehicle will emit a noise/horn, a horn has a broadcast direction that is exterior to the vehicle).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the functionality includes emitting a sound that comprises a broadcast direction based on the location of the force of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches further comprising a memory configured to store values or settings related to the functionality (Paragraph [0004], “The detection device is connected to the computer of the vehicle or ECU (English abbreviation for “Electronic Control Unit”), and sends it a presence detection signal. The vehicle's computer has previously identified the user as being authorized to access the vehicle; alternatively, it proceeds to perform this identification after receiving this presence detection signal,” here the detection device is connected to a vehicle computer which stores values or settings).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches further comprising a buffer disposed between at least one of the plurality of inductive sensors and a respective one of the plurality of the conductive targets (Paragraph [0051], “a compressible prestressed element 30, located between the target 40 and the coil 20”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Guibbert further teaches wherein the buffer comprises a rubber buffer (Paragraph [0051], “a compressible prestressed element 30, located between the target 40 and the coil 20”) (Paragraph [0080], “The compressible prestressed element 30 is located between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, and is made, for example, of EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer),” here EPDM is a synthetic rubber).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Guibbert does not explicitly teach further comprising a steering wheel assembly having a center portion and wherein the vehicle interface is sized and shaped so that at least a portion of the vehicle interface fits within the center portion.
Verner further teaches further comprising a steering wheel assembly having a center portion and wherein the vehicle interface is sized and shaped so that at least a portion of the vehicle interface fits within the center portion (See Figures 1 and 2 showing a steering assembly 16, 18 which a vehicle interface which fits in the center portion 20).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the conductive target is disposed upon a surface of the airbag module and the inductive sensor is disposed upon the steering wheel assembly of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the functionality of the vehicle by incorporating inconspicuous methods while still being easily accessible by a passenger for triggering functionality of the vehicle (Paragraph [0017], “Also, portions along the perimeter of the sensor assembly 20 can be integrally formed with the steering housing 23 or otherwise configured to mate with the steering housing 23 such that any seams are inconspicuous or concealed.”).
Regarding claim 22, Guibbert teaches inductive sensor, each inductive sensor (Paragraph [0050], "the invention proposes that said contact detection element 100 comprise an inductive sensor")
adapted to generate a signal in response to changes in a measure inductance caused by a change in distance between the respective inductive sensor and a target surface (Paragraph [0088-0089], "For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm. This movement from the initial distance d0 to the final distance d1 modifies the inductance of the coil 20. The variation in the inductance of said coil 20 is therefore representative of the user's pressure on the handle 10,” here the target moves between a plurality of positional distances which changes the inductance).
However Guibbert does not explicitly teach a plurality of inductive sensors, one of the plurality of target surfaces, a steering wheel assembly for a vehicle comprising at least one target surface disposed on an airbag module.
Verner teaches a vehicle horn control assembly comprises a sensor assembly and a controller including
a plurality of inductive sensors (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34. The number of sensors 42 in each of the sensor zones 40 can be a single sensor 42 up to any suitable amount of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes five sensors 42. However, the sensor zones 40 can have different numbers of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 can include one or more tactile sensors as known in the art. As understood in the art and as illustrated in FIG. 5, as the force-induced pressure applied to a tactile sensor 42 is increased, the voltage output by that tactile sensor can also be configured to increase proportionately. For instance, the sensors 42 can each be a piezoelectric element or any other suitable type of sensor (e.g., strain gauge, capacitance sensor, or force sensor) that generates a voltage when a strain is imposed on the element,” here the system is teaching the use of a plurality of sensors coupled to the vehicle interface/steering wheel, and while Verner is not explicitly reciting inductive sensors with conductive targets, Verner recites that any suitable sensor may be substituted here, such as the inductive sensors with conductive targets as taught by Guibbert)
one of the plurality of target surfaces (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34. The number of sensors 42 in each of the sensor zones 40 can be a single sensor 42 up to any suitable amount of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes five sensors 42. However, the sensor zones 40 can have different numbers of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 can include one or more tactile sensors as known in the art,” here each of the sensor zones is a target surface)
a steering wheel assembly for a vehicle comprising (Paragraph [0017], “As further shown in FIG. 2, the steering assembly 16 of the vehicle 10 will typically include an airbag assembly 22 mounted to a steering housing 23.”)
a plurality of target surfaces disposed on an airbag module (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34. The number of sensors 42 in each of the sensor zones 40 can be a single sensor 42 up to any suitable amount of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes five sensors 42. However, the sensor zones 40 can have different numbers of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 can include one or more tactile sensors as known in the art,” here each of the sensor zones is a target surface).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of inductive sensors, one of the plurality of target surfaces, a steering wheel assembly for a vehicle comprising at least one target surface disposed on an airbag module of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 16, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, Guibbert teaches a method for triggering a functionality of a vehicle, the vehicle comprising (Paragraph [0020], "the detection device according to the invention can provide reliable and robust detection of the intention to unlock or lock the vehicle")
a target surface (Paragraph [0071], “The non-magnetic metal target 40 is adapted to move along the axis Y-Y′. Said non-magnetic metal target 40 is made, for example, of aluminum or any other non-magnetic metal," here the metal target moves along the y-y axis to a plurality of positions)
an inductive sensor (Paragraph [0050], "the invention proposes that said contact detection element 100 comprise an inductive sensor")
each inductive sensor disposed relative to a respective one of the plurality of target surfaces to sense movement of the target surface (Paragraph [0088-0089], "For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm. This movement from the initial distance d0 to the final distance d1 modifies the inductance of the coil 20. The variation in the inductance of said coil 20 is therefore representative of the user's pressure on the handle 10,” here the target moves between a plurality of positional distances which changes the inductance)
comprising, moving at least one of the plurality of target surfaces to change a distance between at least one of the plurality of target surfaces and a respective one of the plurality of inductive sensors (Paragraph [0071], “The non-magnetic metal target 40 is adapted to move along the axis Y-Y′. Said non-magnetic metal target 40 is made, for example, of aluminum or any other non-magnetic metal," here the metal target moves along the y-y axis to a plurality of positions)
generating signals from the inductive sensor in response to changes in measured inductance caused by the change in the distance (Paragraph [0089], “This movement from the initial distance d0 to the final distance d1 modifies the inductance of the coil 20. The variation in the inductance of said coil 20 is therefore representative of the user's pressure on the handle 10.”)
determining at least one of a magnitude of a force or a location of the force (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’)
and triggering the functionality of the vehicle based on the at least one of the magnitude of the force or the location of the force (Paragraph [0004], "it triggers the locking/unlocking of the door").
However while Guibbert teaches an inductive sensor paired with a conductive target and triggering a functionality of the vehicle.
Guibbert does not explicitly teach a plurality of target surfaces, a plurality of inductive sensors, each inductive sensor disposed relative to a respective one of the plurality of target surfaces, generating signals from the plurality of sensors, determining at least one of a magnitude of a force or a location of the force based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors and triggering the functionality of the vehicle based on the at least one of the magnitude of the force or the location of the force.
Verner teaches a vehicle horn control assembly comprises a sensor assembly and a controller including
a plurality of target surfaces (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34. The number of sensors 42 in each of the sensor zones 40 can be a single sensor 42 up to any suitable amount of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes five sensors 42. However, the sensor zones 40 can have different numbers of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 can include one or more tactile sensors as known in the art,” here each of the sensor zones is a target surface)
a plurality of inductive sensors (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34. The number of sensors 42 in each of the sensor zones 40 can be a single sensor 42 up to any suitable amount of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes five sensors 42. However, the sensor zones 40 can have different numbers of sensors 42. In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 can include one or more tactile sensors as known in the art. As understood in the art and as illustrated in FIG. 5, as the force-induced pressure applied to a tactile sensor 42 is increased, the voltage output by that tactile sensor can also be configured to increase proportionately. For instance, the sensors 42 can each be a piezoelectric element or any other suitable type of sensor (e.g., strain gauge, capacitance sensor, or force sensor) that generates a voltage when a strain is imposed on the element,” here the system is teaching the use of a plurality of sensors coupled to the vehicle interface/steering wheel, and while Verner is not explicitly reciting inductive sensors, Verner recites that any suitable sensor may be substituted here, such as the inductive sensors with conductive targets as taught by Guibbert)
each inductive sensor disposed relative to a respective one of the plurality of target surfaces (Paragraph [0022], “In this example, each of the sensor zones 40 includes a respective arrangement of sensors 42 that are electrically coupled to the controller 34.”) (While Verner is not explicitly reciting inductive sensors, Verner recites that any suitable sensor may be substituted here, such as the inductive sensors with conductive targets as taught by Guibbert)
generating signals from the plurality of sensors (Paragraph [0023], “Therefore, as discussed in more detail below, each of the sensor zones 40 can be configured to output a respective pressure signal having a value that is proportionate to the amount of pressure applied thereto.”)
determining at least one of a magnitude of a force or a location of the force (Paragraph [0022], “As understood in the art and as illustrated in FIG. 5, as the force-induced pressure applied to a tactile sensor 42 is increased, the voltage output by that tactile sensor can also be configured to increase proportionately,” here the system can determine a magnitude of a force applied based on a relative voltage of a sensor) (Paragraph [0029], “That is, the controller 34 determines, based on the respective pressure signals output by the individual sensors 42 in the sensor zones 40 over a period of time, a touching characteristic representing a manner in which a user typically touches the sensor assembly 20 to activate the vehicle horn 24 in step 210. In step 220, the controller 32 thus sets each respective pressure threshold for each sensor zone 40, or for each specific sensor 42 in each sensor zone 40, based on the user touching characteristic,” here the system can determine a magnitude of a force applied to a sensor and the location of the force)
based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors (Paragraph [0023], “Therefore, as discussed in more detail below, each of the sensor zones 40 can be configured to output a respective pressure signal having a value that is proportionate to the amount of pressure applied thereto.”) (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn” here the system is detecting a location and magnitude of pressure on the sensor based on the plurality of sensors) (While Verner is not explicitly reciting inductive sensors, Verner recites that any suitable sensor may be substituted here, such as the inductive sensors with conductive targets as taught by Guibbert)
and triggering the functionality of the vehicle based on the at least one of the magnitude of the force or the location of the force (Paragraph [0031], “if the user typically touches the sensor zones 40 located at a 2 o'clock position on the sensor assembly 20 when the user intends to activate the horn, the controller 34 can set the threshold such that even a slight pressure applied to the sensors 42 of the sensor array 32 at the 2 o'clock position will activate the horn”).
Guibbert and Verner are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of target surfaces, a plurality of inductive sensors, each inductive sensor disposed relative to a respective one of the plurality of target surfaces, generating signals from the plurality of sensors, determining at least one of a magnitude of a force or a location of the force based on weighing relative input from the plurality of inductive sensors and triggering the functionality of the vehicle based on the at least one of the magnitude of the force or the location of the force of Verner in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the user experience by preventing unintentional activation of vehicle functions (Paragraph [0031], “the controller 34 can set one of the respective pressure thresholds to be higher than a default pressure threshold for the remaining sensor zones 40 in order to reduce unintentional operation of the vehicle horn.”).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is similar in scope to claim 2, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 28 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guibbert (US-20170016255) in view of Verner (US 20140125124) and further in view of Kandler (US 20200036411).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Guibbert and Verner teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Guibbert does not explicitly teach wherein the conductive target is disposed upon a surface of the airbag module and the inductive sensor is disposed upon the steering wheel assembly.
Kandler further teaches wherein the conductive target is disposed upon a surface of the airbag module and the inductive sensor is disposed upon the steering wheel assembly (Paragraph [0017], “In particular, the vehicle component is a steering wheel, in particular, an airbag module of a steering wheel.”) (Paragraph [0022], “In particular, it is possible that the switch is arranged in a steering wheel, wherein the switch is used to trigger a horn signal.”) (See also figure 10).
Guibbert, Verner and Kandler are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for detecting a user input to trigger a function of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the conductive target is disposed upon a surface of the airbag module and the inductive sensor is disposed upon the steering wheel assembly of Kandler in the system for actuating a functionality of a vehicle of Guibbert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the functionality of the vehicle by incorporating inconspicuous methods while still being easily accessible by a passenger for triggering functionality of the vehicle (Paragraph [0010], “which is as inconspicuous as possible, of the NFC antenna into the vehicle takes place, wherein, nevertheless, the antenna can be easily accessible for a vehicle passenger”).
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is similar in scope to claim 4, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Guibbert, Verner, and Kandler teaches the system as discussed above in claim 28, Guibbert further teaches wherein the signal indicates a measure of force, and wherein the triggering the functionality of the vehicle is based on the measure of the force (Paragraph [0088], “For example, if there is a force of 10 N exerted by the user on the locking area Z1′ of the handle 10, and an initial distance d0 of about 1 mm between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil 20, the movement of the non-magnetic metal target 40 during pressing varies from about 20 μm to 100 μm, and the final distance d1 between the non-magnetic metal target 40 and the coil is then in the range from 0.9 mm to 0.98 mm,” here the locking/unlocking signal is a result of a force applied to the vehicle interface/hand in the specific locking area Z1’).
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is similar in scope to claim 10, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aerts (US-20200039559) teaches a steering wheel assembly also includes at least one pressure sensitive component disposed within the steering housing. Boeckstiegel (US-20100276264) teaches a triggering device for a horn system of a motor vehicle is integrated in a steering wheel of the motor vehicle. Pathak (US 8406961) teaches a vehicle user interface has a touch sensitive input devices such as touchpads and a touch screen that have specific function commands mapped to them. A user can select which function commands are mapped to which portions of the touch screen.
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 CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights