DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (USP 12275364).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a steering wheel, the steering wheel being used for a vehicle and comprising:
a steering wheel central portion (fig.3, central portion having 2) and a steering wheel rim (fig.3, 1) surrounding the steering wheel central portion, the steering wheel central portion comprising a cover (21) and a support (8 and 22), the cover being connected to the support a suspended manner to permit movement of the cover relative to the support (based on this qualification of suspended manner it is evident that the cover 21 is permitted to move relative to the support 8 because at the very least elements 217 of the cover are designed to be pressed so as to move 21 relative to support 8 and the switch 62 attached thereto), and the cover and the support together defining an installation space in which a functional module (6 or 7 read on the functional module and the installation space is readily visible in fig.9 among other figures and would be interpreted as the space generally located between the cover and the support) is arranged, wherein the functional module is supported by the support in the installation space, and wherein a predetermined function provided in the functional module can be enabled/disabled by touching the cover (evident from figures), wherein the cover is a seamless cover (there are no seems on top of the cover as visible in figures 5 and 11), and the support is an integrated support (as seen in figures, the support is integrated into the entire assembly).
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. discloses the steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein elastic units (fig.8, elastic rubber elements 63 read on these) are provided between the cover and the support.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. discloses the steering wheel according to claim 2, wherein the cover is divided into a middle region and a first side region and a second side region located on both sides of the middle region, the functional module is provided at a portion of the support corresponding to the first side region or the second side, and an airbag module is provided at a portion of the support corresponding to the middle region (this is readily apparent in fig.5, the functional modules are provided on the side regions and the middle region covers the area under which the airbag 23 is placed).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses the steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the support is provided with hook-shaped portions and the hook-shaped portions are provided to extend into a window portion of the cover so that the cover is snapped on the support (seen in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. discloses the steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the functional module comprises touch feedback modules (disclosure mentions the use of touch sensitive films 215) and the touch feedback modules comprise a vibration feedback device (65) provided on the cover for providing vibration feedback when the predetermined function is enabled/disabled.
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. discloses the steering wheel according to claim 3, wherein the elastic units are configured as a plurality of pieces of rubber (fig.8, 63; these would be placed on both sides) distributed on both a portion of the support corresponding to the first side region and a portion of the support corresponding to the second side region.
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses the steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the functional module comprises printed circuit boards (34) fixed to the support; force sensors (col.9, lines 28 among other areas) are provided on the printed circuit boards to detect the position and/or the magnitude of a touch force applied to the cover; the predetermined function comprises one or more among a horn function, a multimedia function, and an auto-cruise function (multiple functions are discussed throughout the specification); and the predetermined function of the functional module is enabled/disabled on the basis of the position and/or the magnitude of the touch force detected by the force sensor (an example is given where a magnitude of force is detected to activate a horn function, see col.10, lines 61-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cited prior art contains varying portions of claim 4 but no single piece of art provides teaching for all the limitations and it is deemed unreasonable to provide a piecemeal analysis of claim 4 and therefore only when considering the entirety of claim 4 along with intervening claims and the base independent claim does the claim rise to allowable subject matter. More detailed reasons for allowance to follow in the notice of allowance pending appropriate amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue the concept of the limitation of suspended manner and how it was interpreted in the prior art. First, it is important to note that the limitation in the context it was originally utilized in the claim is broad and without an explicit definition in the specification was given a broadest reasonable interpretation or BRI. However, it now appears that Applicant has qualified suspended manner to simply be limited to permitting movement between the cover and the support. This is readily encompassed by the structure in the prior art, as explained above in the rejection. The cover can move relative to support 8 during depression of the switch portions 217. It will be important to precisely and carefully define/claim the elements and their structural relationships, otherwise numerous BRI are possible. Currently, as long as any portion of the cover moves relative to the support, this satisfies the claim language and this is readily discussed in col.10, lines 1+.
Applicant further argues the claimed limitations related to the installation space and functional module. Again, this is broadly defined in the claim. The installation space is given its plain meaning a broad limitation. It could extend to any space between the cover and the support and the term space in and of itself is arbitrary/imaginary in nature without careful qualification. As such, it is evident that the interpretation made above reads on the claim limitations as written. There is a lot of possibilities available to structurally define and qualify the elements and structural relationships to better fit Applicants intended scope based on the arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 9016719 is relevant to mounting structure of a steering wheel. Likewise, USP 6572138, USpgpub 20150097793, 20220001827.
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 THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights