The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 22 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined. Claims 1-20 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Objection to specification is withdrawn due to filing of a new abstract.
Claim rejection of “controller”, “processing unit”, “vibration sensor identification unit”, “linkage operation relationship apparatus”, “input interface”, “output interface”, door open/close, and rear-mirror unfold/fold under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn due to amendment and argument. However, “linkage operation relationship apparatus” as amended to “linkage operation relationship table” as to independent claim 12 has raised new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as set forth in this office action.
Claim interpretation of “controller”, “processing unit”, “vibration sensor identification unit”, “linkage operation relationship apparatus”, “input interface”, and “output interface” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph is withdrawn due to amendment and argument.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Austin, et al., US 20240351595 A1 in view of Kitakaze, et al., KR 100470850 B1, Applicant seems to argue that neither Austin nor Kitakaze teaches “disposing a number of actuators for the number of operating regions, each of the number of operating regions comprising one corresponding actuator as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Austin teaches “In certain embodiments, devices that may be controlled via finger tapping on device 240 include two example auxiliary control units 260 and 270, which represent various possible devices and/or systems that may be controlled by controller 210. For example, these auxiliary control units 260, 270 may be vehicle system control hardware 125 that is configured for controlling an actuation, functionality, setting, and/or operation of various vehicle systems (e.g., an audio system, a navigation system, etc.) of vehicle 180, as described above.” (Austin: ¶43; Figs. 2 and 3 and related text teaches vibration sensors actuate different vehicle components). There is no further argument against other limitations and dependent claims. As the rejections to the independent claims are proper, the rejections of the dependent claims are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected because claims 12-20 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected because claim 12 is a system claim which is an apparatus claim that includes physical structures. However, the system as claimed includes “linkage operation relationship table” as part of the physical structure. Applicant seems to argue that “linkage operation relationship table” as data structure. Data structure is no physical structure as the other elements included in the system claim as recited. As such, “linkage operation relationship table” is indefinite and unclear what “linkage operation relationship table” is. Appropriate correction is needed.
Dependent claims 13-20 are rejected based on dependency of respective independent claim.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Austin, et al., US 20240351595 A1 in view of Kitakaze, et al., KR 100470850 B1.
As to claim 1, Austin teaches a human-computer interaction method for a vehicle, the vehicle being provided with a controller and a body of the vehicle being provided with a number of operating regions (Fig. 1 and related text shows processing device along with vibration device in a vehicle body), wherein the method comprises:
disposing a number of actuators for the number of operating regions, each of the number of operating regions comprising one corresponding actuator (Figs. 2 and 3 and related text teaches vibration sensors actuate different vehicle components; “In certain embodiments, devices that may be controlled via finger tapping on device 240 include two example auxiliary control units 260 and 270, which represent various possible devices and/or systems that may be controlled by controller 210. For example, these auxiliary control units 260, 270 may be vehicle system control hardware 125 that is configured for controlling an actuation, functionality, setting, and/or operation of various vehicle systems (e.g., an audio system, a navigation system, etc.) of vehicle 180, as described above. ¶43);
disposing a plurality of vibration sensors for the number of operating
regions, at least one vibration sensor being disposed on each of the number of operating regions (“By tapping a particular section of the steering device, a user may control a particular setting (e.g., control the vehicle's radio volume) or a particular function (e.g., enable or disable cruise control) of the vehicle”, ¶12); and
monitoring a tapping signal on a corresponding one of the number of
operating regions by the at least one vibration sensor (“vibration sensors 160 are positioned along a rim of the steering device such that vibration detected by vibration sensors 160 from each different section 250 of the steering device produces a unique combination of vibration information produced by vibration sensors 160. Each unique combination of the vibration information produced from vibration at each different section 250 may correspond to a unique user command. For example, vibration detected at a first section 250 (e.g., top) of the steering device may correspond to a fast forward command (e.g., a user command used to advance or jump ahead when an audio file is being played via an audio system of vehicle 180), while vibration at a second section 250 (e.g., bottom) of steering device may correspond to a rewind command. Thus, based on a section 250 where the vibration is detected, a unique combination of vibration information may be produced, and this unique combination of vibration information may correspond to a unique user command, that may be determined by driver support system 100”, ¶60),
Austin does not explicitly teach the method comprising:
setting a linkage operation relationship between the number of operating regions;
wherein the controller is configured to control the number of actuators in the number of operating regions based on the linkage operation relationship and the tapping signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, this matter is taught by Kitakaze that different tappings on a working surface to produce operations according to a conversion table between and a controller to result in operation according to the conversion table (Kitakaze: “percussion sensors A to S which are decentralized and arranged at operation parts 31 (32, 33) recognized to have three areas Z1 to Z3 on the percussion surface and can detect whether a percussion is made. Further, the device is equipped with a trigger conversion part 141 which converts detection signals from the 19 sensors A to S detected at every 1 /60 second into trigger information indicating whether percussion operation starts and a conversion table 116 which shows the relation all combination of pieces of trigger information corresponding to the 19 sensors A to S and an area determined wherein the percussion surface”, abs; Figs. 3c, 7b, 8b and related text; Pages 2-4, 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable expectation of success to modify the method controlling vehicle functions in Austin's teaching to include setting a linkage operation relationship between the number of operating regions; wherein the controller is configured to control the number of actuators in the number of operating regions based on the linkage operation relationship and the tapping signal as taught by Kitakaze to improve driver safety in driving by focusing driving while enabling control of different vehicle function (Austin: ¶2).
As to claim 2, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein
the controller is configured to perform the following operations: (i) receiving
a monitored tapping signal; (ii) identifying a tapped operating region associated with the
tapping signal; (iii) activating an actuator in the tapped operating region; and (iv) activating actuators in other operating regions associated with the tapped operating region based on the linkage operation relationship (Kitakaze: “method and device for determining a striking operation area that enables detection of an operating area for a manipulator having a single striking surface shape using all information of arranged sensors, thereby enabling area determination with good precision, and that facilitates coping with various area settings without requiring changes to mechanical parts. In order to achieve the above object, according to a first feature of the present invention, the present invention provides a striking operation area determination device for determining a striking area on a striking surface for an operator having a single striking surface formed so as to be recognizable that the surface has i areas, and n (>i) striking sensors distributed about the striking surface and capable of detecting the presence or absence of a strike, the device including a trigger conversion means for converting a detection signal from each of the n striking sensors detected at predetermined intervals into trigger information indicating the presence or absence of a striking operation, and a conversion table indicating a relationship between all combinations of trigger information corresponding to the n striking sensors and an area determined to have been struck among the i areas”, Page 14).
As to claim 3, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein
the linkage operation relationship is defined by a quantity of tapping signals (Kitakaze: Figs. 3c, 7b, 8b and related text; “present invention provides a striking operation area determination device for determining a striking area on a striking surface for an operator having a single striking surface formed so as to be recognizable that the surface has i areas, and n (>i) striking sensors distributed about the striking surface and capable of detecting the presence or absence of a strike, the device including a trigger conversion means for converting a detection signal from each of the n striking sensors detected at predetermined intervals into trigger information indicating the presence or absence of a striking operation, and a conversion table indicating a relationship between all combinations of trigger information corresponding to the n striking sensors and an area determined to have been struck among the i areas”, Page 14),
wherein one tap on each of the number of operating regions (102-107) generates one tapping signal (Kitakaze: Figs. 3c, 7b, 8b and related text; “present invention provides a striking operation area determination device for determining a striking area on a striking surface for an operator having a single striking surface formed so as to be recognizable that the surface has i areas, and n (>i) striking sensors distributed about the striking surface and capable of detecting the presence or absence of a strike, the device including a trigger conversion means for converting a detection signal from each of the n striking sensors detected at predetermined intervals into trigger information indicating the presence or absence of a striking operation, and a conversion table indicating a relationship between all combinations of trigger information corresponding to the n striking sensors and an area determined to have been struck among the i areas”, Page 14).
As to claim 4, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein the controller is configured to: after the first tapping signal is received, monitor a next tapping signal within a preset time window, and activate the number of actuators based on a quantity of received tapping signals after the time window ends (Austin: “probability that the user intends to employ the user command is based on behaviors and/or patterns learned for the user over time. In particular, learned behavior and/or patterns for the user may be collected and generated over time to later predict, when one or more of these behaviors and/or patterns are detected, the likelihood that the user intends to control one or more vehicle settings and/or controls. As an illustrative example, over time, based on observing behavior of a particular user of vehicle 180, driver support system 100 may determine that the user when attempting to control an audio volume within vehicle 180, ninety percent of the time will execute two consecutive taps on a steering device of vehicle 180 using their right hand. As such, in cases where two consecutive fingers taps by a right hand of the user are detected by vibration sensors 160, processing device 105 may assume that the user is more likely than not (e.g., probability is equal to 90%) that the user is intended to adjust audio volume within vehicle 180.”, ¶72).
As to claim 5, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein each of the plurality of vibration sensors comprises a vibration sensor identification unit configured to store a sensor identifier representing a region location of the vibration sensor (Kitakaze: “multiple fingers (or striking members) striking the upper surface sheet material (314) do not all touch the upper surface sheet material (314) at the same time, and reverberation, etc. are also taken into consideration to remove signals that occur repeatedly in a short period of time as noise. The trigger information (Tn) with the chattering removed is input as the final result into the table memory shown in (c) of Fig. 3 (step ST9), and information indicating the corresponding area is output to the evaluation unit (150). FIG. 7 is a drawing showing a variation 1 consisting of areas Z1 to Z3 for the sensor arrangement shown in FIG. 3 (a). FIG. 7 (a) is a plan view
showing the shape of areas Z1 to Z3, and FIG. 7 (b) is a drawing showing a conversion table showing the relationship between the sensor output state and the area determined by the presence of an operation. As shown in Fig. 7, area Z1 is a circular portion with a radius of approximately 1/2 of the upper surface sheet material (314), and areas Z2 and Z3 are divided into two equal parts in the front-back direction (or left-right direction) on the outer circumference thereof. Sensors A to G are included in area Z1, and the outermost sensors H to S are arranged approximately at the center in the diametric direction of areas Z2 and Z3. FIG. 8 is a drawing showing a modified example 2 consisting of areas Z1 to Z4 for the sensor arrangement shown in FIG. 3 (a). FIG. 8 (a) is a plan view showing the shape of areas Z1 to Z4, and FIG. 8 (b) is a drawing showing a conversion table showing the relationship between the sensor output state and the area determined by the presence of an operation.”, Pages 41-42).
As to claim 6, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
disposing a number of regional vibration sensors for an operating region of the
number of operating regions, the number of regional vibration sensors having
the same vibration sensor identifier (Kitakaze: “As shown in Fig. 7, area Z1 is a circular portion with a radius of approximately 1/2 of the upper surface sheet material (314), and areas Z2 and Z3 are divided into two equal parts in the front-back direction (or left-right direction) on the outer circumference thereof. Sensors A to G are included in area Z1, and the outermost sensors H to S are arranged approximately at the center in the diametric direction of areas Z2 and Z3. FIG. 8 is a drawing showing a modified example 2 consisting of areas Z1 to Z4 for the sensor arrangement shown in FIG. 3 (a). FIG. 8 (a) is a plan view showing the shape of areas Z1 to Z4, and FIG. 8 (b) is a drawing showing a conversion table showing the relationship between the sensor output state and the area determined by the presence of an operation. As shown in Fig. 8, areas Z1 to Z4 are divided into four equal parts in a radial shape. Even with these variations1 and 2, the impact area can be properly determined by the conversion table of Fig. 7 (b) and
Fig. 8 (b). In addition, since the sensor arrangement shape of (a) of Fig. 3, i.e., the arrangement of the sensors once set, is not changed at all”, Page 42),
wherein the controller is configured to perform the following operations when a tapping signal monitored by each of the number of regional vibration sensors is received: (i) activating an actuator in the operating region; and (ii) activating actuators in other operating regions associated with the operating region based on the linkage operation relationship (Kitakaze: Fig. 9 shows a third modified example regarding sensor placement and areas. Fig. 9 (a) is a plan view showing the arrangement shape of the sensors, Fig. 9 (b) is a plan view showing the shapes of areas Z1 to Z3, and Fig. 9 (c) is a diagram showing a conversion table showing the relationship between the sensor output state and the area determined by the presence of an operation. As shown in (a) of Fig. 9, areas Z2 and Z3 are formed in a shape that is symmetrical
left and right on a part of the front side of the upper sheet material (314), and area Z1 is
formed in a shape that includes the remaining part, i.e., the center and the front. As shown in (b) of Fig. 9, the number of sensors is 15, sensors A to O, and they are arranged symmetrically on the left and right, and in area Z2, sensors G, L, and N are arranged at approximately equal intervals in the circumferential direction, in area Z3, sensors I, M, and O are arranged at approximately equal intervals in the peripheral direction, in area Z1, sensor H is arranged at the center, and sensors D, E, J, and K are arranged around it, sensors C and F are arranged on the left and right, and sensors A and B are arranged on the front left and right. As shown in the fourth row (arrow position) from the top of the table in (c) of Fig. 9, if only sensors N and O are turned on and outputting “1” as trigger information, the impact position at this time is area Z1. This is because the player recognizes that area Z1 occupies the vicinity of the center, and
therefore, when the player hits the left or right center position even if it is in front, it is natural to treat it as hitting area Z1. This also applies to (c) of Fig. 3 and (b) of Fig. 7. In addition, in (b) of Fig. 8, when at least three or more regions are turned on, it is acceptable to treat region Z1 (or region Z4) as being manipulated.”, Page 44).
As to claim 7, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
setting a linkage operation relationship table, wherein the linkage operation
relationship table indicates the linkage operation relationship, the linkage operation relationship table is used to represent the linkage operation relationship between the number of operating regions, and the linkage operation relationship table is stored in a memory of the controller (Kitakaze: Fig. 9 shows a third modified example regarding sensor placement and areas. Fig. 9 (a) is a plan view showing the arrangement shape of the sensors, Fig. 9 (b) is a plan view showing the shapes of areas Z1 to Z3, and Fig. 9 (c) is a diagram showing a conversion table showing the relationship between the sensor output state and the area determined by the presence of an operation. As shown in (a) of Fig. 9, areas Z2 and Z3 are formed in a shape that is symmetrical left and right on a part of the front side of the upper sheet material (314), and area Z1 is formed in a shape that includes the remaining part, i.e., the center and the front. As shown in (b) of Fig. 9, the number of sensors is 15, sensors A to O, and they are arranged symmetrically on the left and right, and in area Z2, sensors G, L, and N are arranged at approximately equal intervals in the circumferential direction, in area Z3, sensors I, M, and O are arranged at approximately equal intervals in the peripheral direction, in area Z1, sensor H is arranged at the center, and sensors D, E, J, and K are arranged around it, sensors C and F are arranged on the left and right, and sensors A and B are arranged on the front left and right. As shown in the fourth row (arrow position) from the top of the table in (c) of Fig. 9, if only sensors N and O are turned on and outputting “1” as trigger information, the impact position at this time is area Z1. This is because the player recognizes that area Z1 occupies the vicinity of the center, and therefore, when the player hits the left or right center position even if it is in front, it is natural to treat it as hitting area Z1. This also applies to (c) of Fig. 3 and (b) of Fig. 7. In addition, in (b) of Fig. 8, when at least three or more regions are turned on, it is acceptable to treat region Z1 (or region Z4) as being manipulated.”, Page 44).
As to claim 11, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
using one or more gesture signal sensors to monitor gesture signals on the numberof operating regions, and after the gesture signals are monitored, activating the number of vibration sensors to monitor tapping signals on the number of operating regions (Austin: “the probability that the user intends to employ the user command is based on behaviors and/or patterns learned for the user over time. In particular, learned behavior and/or patterns for the user may be collected and generated over time to later predict, when one or more of these behaviors and/or patterns are detected, the likelihood that the user intends to control one or more vehicle settings and/or controls. As an illustrative example, over time, based on observing behavior of a particular user of vehicle 180, driver support system 100 may determine that the user when attempting to control an audio volume within vehicle 180, ninety percent of the time will execute two consecutive taps on a steering device of vehicle 180 using their right hand. As such, in cases where two consecutive fingers taps by a right hand of the user are detected by vibration sensors 160, processing device 105 may assume that the user is more likely than not (e.g., probability is equal to 90%) that the user is intended to adjust audio volume within vehicle 180”, ¶71).
As to claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 5, and 6. As such, system claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the claims 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and are incorporated herein (see claim 1 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine).
As to claim 19, Austin modified by Kitakaze teaches the method wherein the controller comprises:
an input interface configured to receive tapping signals from the plurality of
vibration sensors (Austin: “Driver support system 100 may include a processing device 105, input/output (I/O) hardware 110, user interface hardware 115, mobility control hardware 120, vehicle systems control hardware 125, a data storage device 130, memory 185, and one or more sensors 190. A local interface 135, such as a bus or the like, may interconnect the various components of driver support system 100”, ¶20);
a processing unit configured to process the tapping signals and generate a
driving signal (Austin: “Driver support system 100 may include a processing device 105, input/output (I/O) hardware 110, user interface hardware 115, mobility control hardware 120, vehicle systems control hardware 125, a data storage device 130, memory 185, and one or more sensors 190. A local interface 135, such as a bus or the like, may interconnect the various components of driver support system 100”, ¶20-23);
an output interface configured to transmit the generated driving signal to the number of actuators (209-214) (Austin: “Driver support system 100 may include a processing device 105, input/output (I/O) hardware 110, user interface hardware 115, mobility control hardware 120, vehicle systems control hardware 125, a data storage device 130, memory 185, and one or more sensors 190. A local interface 135, such as a bus or the like, may interconnect the various components of driver support system 100”, ¶20-23);
a memory configured to store an executable program and a linkage
operation relationship table, wherein the processing unit generates the driving signal based on the executable program and the linkage operation relationship table, and the linkage operation relationship table is used to represent the linkage operation relationship between the number of operating regions (Austin: “Driver support system 100 may include a processing device 105, input/output (I/O) hardware 110, user interface hardware 115, mobility control hardware 120, vehicle systems control hardware 125, a data storage device 130, memory 185, and one or more sensors 190. A local interface 135, such as a bus or the like, may interconnect the various components of driver support system 100”, ¶20; Kitakaze: conversion table memory, Page 52; see claim 1 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine); and
a bus, wherein the processing unit, the input interface, the output interface, and the memory are connected to the bus (Austin: “Driver support system 100 may include a processing device 105, input/output (I/O) hardware 110, user interface hardware 115, mobility control hardware 120, vehicle systems control hardware 125, a data storage device 130, memory 185, and one or more sensors 190. A local interface 135, such as a bus or the like, may interconnect the various components of driver support system 100”, ¶20).
Claims 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Austin, et al., US 20240351595 A1 in view of in view of Kitakaze, et al., KR 100470850 B1, further in view of Peng et al., EP4275981 (A1).
As to claim 8, Austin modified by Kitakaze does not explicitly teach the method wherein the number of actuators comprise at least one of the following: a vehicle door open and close actuator, a concealed door handle open and close actuator, a window open and close actuator, a charging port cover open and close actuator, a sunroof open and close actuator, an engine hood open and close actuator, a filler cap open and close actuator, a trunk open and close actuator, a rear-view mirror unfold and fold actuator, and a lighting on/off actuator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, this matter is taught by Peng that multi-gesture interaction of a vehicle control system involving “ON/OFF, confirm or short-press adjustment of a certain function, such as voice activate/cancel, music media play/pause, fold/open adjustment on an exterior rear-view mirror. Short-press tactile feedback: vibrate on pressing for once, vibrate on releasing for once (Peng: abs; ¶42). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable expectation of success to modify the method controlling vehicle functions in Austin modified by Kitakaz's teaching to include number of actuators comprise at least one of the following: a vehicle door open and close actuator, a concealed door handle open and close actuator, a window open and close actuator, a charging port cover open and close actuator, a sunroof open and close actuator, an engine hood open and close actuator, a filler cap open and close actuator, a trunk open and close actuator, a rear-view mirror unfold and fold actuator, and a lighting on/off actuator as taught by Peng to improve driver safety in driving by focusing driving while enabling control of different vehicle function (Austin: ¶2).
As to claim 10, Austin modified by Kitakaze and Peng teach the method wherein the rear-view mirror unfold and fold actuator comprises at least one of the following: a left exterior rear-view mirror unfold and fold actuator, a right exterior rear-view mirror
unfold and fold actuator, and a central interior rear-view mirror unfold and fold actuator (Peng: “ON/OFF, confirm or short-press adjustment of a certain function, such as voice activate/cancel, music media play/pause, fold/open adjustment on an exterior rear-view mirror. Short-press tactile feedback: vibrate on pressing for once, vibrate on releasing for once (abs; ¶42).
As to claim 20, it is a system claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the method claim 8. As such, system claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the claim 8 and are incorporated herein (see claim 8 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Austin, et al., US 20240351595 A1 in view of in view of Kitakaze, et al., KR 100470850 B1, further in view of Peng et al., EP 4275981 (A1), furthest in view of Seger et al., US 20220410705 A1.
As to claim 9, Austin modified by Kitakaze and Peng does not explicitly teach the method wherein the vehicle door open and close actuator comprises at least one of the following: a left-front door open and close actuator, a right-front door open and close actuator, a left-rear door open and close actuator, and a right-rear door open and close actuator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, this matter is taught by Seger that a vehicle control system using tapping on a button to control vehicle components such as front passenger door open and close (Seger: 205, 271, 358, 456). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable expectation of success to modify the method controlling vehicle functions in Austin modified by Kitakaz and Peng's teaching to include vehicle door open and close actuator comprises at least one of the following: a left-front door open and close actuator, a right-front door open and close actuator, a left-rear door open and close actuator, and a right-rear door open and close actuator as taught by Seger to improve driver safety in driving by focusing driving while enabling control of different vehicle function (Austin: ¶2).
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 extension fee 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights