DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 § 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “ring-like shape.” The phrase "ring-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As such, the limitation renders the claim as indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2015/0369633 A1; “Karasawa”) in view of Kihara et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2021/0221285 A1; “Kihara”).
Karasawa discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A steering device (1; FIG. 2) mounted on a movable body (FIG. 1 reasonably depicts/discloses a vehicle steered by the steering wheel, see MPEP § 2125; ¶ 40, “steering column 12”), the steering device comprising:
a rotation part (12) attached to the movable body so as to be rotatable (¶ 40, “steering column 12” indicates a movable body/mechanism to transfer rotation to the steering mechanism); and
a gripping part (11) connected to the rotation part (depicted in FIG. 2), the gripping part configured to be gripped by an occupant (¶ 40, :FIG. 1), the gripping part including:
a core metal part (¶ 43, “metal component included in the steering core”) positioned on both sides of the rotation part (¶ 42, “A central portion of the wheel is a steering core 111”); and
a covering part (2, 112, 113; FIG. 3, 14) configured to cover the core metal part, the covering part including a first layer (2), a second layer (112), and a third layer (113), the first layer positioned closer to the core metal part compared to the second layer and the third layer (FIG. 3, 14 depict layer 2 as being radially closer to core 111 than layers 112, 113), the first layer having conductivity (¶ 40, “electrostatic capacitance sensor 2” indicates conductivity), the second layer arranged between the first layer and the third layer (FIG. 3, 14 depict layer 112 as being radially between layers 2 and 113), the second layer formed of a non-conductive material having flexibility (¶ 42, “cushioning material 112 can be formed by, for example, a rubber material such as a rubber sheet, or a foamed resin such as a foamed urethane. In order to absorb the unevenness created by the electrostatic capacitance sensor 2 and flatten a surface side, the cushioning material 112 is preferably provided along an entire circumference of the steering core 111”), the third layer of the gripping part exposed to outside (FIG. 3, 14, depict it as the outer-most layer; ¶ 42, “steering skin 113 touched by the hand of the occupant and formed from leather, or the like”), the third layer formed of a non-conductive material (¶ 42, “leather, or the like” indicating a material not configured to conduct electricity), and the steering device further comprising: a detector (22; FIG. 4) configured to detect a change in capacitance generated between the occupant gripping the gripping part and the first layer; and a control unit (3; ¶ 48, “the electrostatic capacitance sensor 2 according to the present embodiment inputs a potential of the electrostatic capacitance detecting electrode 22 combining the surface wiring layer 221 and the electrode layer 222, to the control device 3, via the contact wiring 2a, and thereby detects electrostatic capacitance”) configured to determine gripping condition of the gripping part based on the change in capacitance detected by the detector (¶ 39, “when the electrostatic capacitance detected by the electrostatic capacitance sensor has attained a certain threshold value or more, it can be determined that the hand of the occupant is touching the steering”).
However, Karasawa does not expressly disclose the third layer being formed of a coating material containing resin.
Kihara teaches a third layer (14) being formed of a coating material containing resin (¶ 37, “The outer skin layer 14 wraps the cladding layer 13 except the region where the light bar 20 is disposed. The outer skin layer 14 of this specific embodiment is formed of synthetic resin sheet material, natural leather, or synthetic leather”) as one among several suitable materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Karasawa such that the third layer being formed of a coating material containing resin, as taught by Kihara, as one among several suitable materials and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Karasawa as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 2:
The steering device according to claim 1, wherein the first layer is fixed to the core metal part with a double-side tape or adhesive and the second layer is fixed on the first layer with a double-side tape or adhesive (¶ 42, “Note that adhesion of each layer is conceivably performed by, for example, a double-sided adhesive tape or an adhesive agent”).
Regarding claim 3:
The steering device according to claim 1, further comprising a heater layer (114; FIG. 14) between the core metal part and the covering part (FIG. 14 depicts layer 114 being radially between core metal part 111 and the covering part 2, 11,2, 113), the heater layer having heat wire, wherein the heat wire is configured to conduct electricity (FIG. 14 reasonably depicts/discloses heat wires extending therethrough; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 4:
The steering device according to claim 3, wherein the first layer is fixed to the heater layer with a double-side tape or adhesive and the second layer is fixed on the first layer with a double-side tape or adhesive (¶ 42, “Note that adhesion of each layer is conceivably performed by, for example, a double-sided adhesive tape or an adhesive agent”).
Regarding claim 5:
The steering device according to claim 1, wherein: the steering device is configured to be connected to a rotation shaft of the movable body which is a vehicle, and so as to be rotated around an axis of the rotation shaft (FIG. 1 reasonably depicts/discloses a vehicle steered by the steering wheel, see MPEP § 2125; ¶ 40, “steering column 12” indicates a rotation shaft connected to the steering wheel to transmit rotational motion to effect steering of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6:
The steering device according to claim 1, wherein: the gripping part has a ring-like shape as viewed in a front-back direction (FIG. 2 depicts gripping part 11 as circular/ring like; MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 7:
The steering device according to claim 1, wherein: the first layer is electrically connected to the detector via a lead wire (2a; ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 9:
The steering device according to claim 1, wherein: the detector includes a circuit (3, 2a) disposed in an internal cavity in the rotation part (FIG. 2 reasonably discloses/depicts the circuit 3, 2a disposed inside the column 12 i.e. rotation part).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa in view of Kihara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vendrand (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2023/0242172 A1; “Vendrand”).
Karasawa as modified above teaches:
Regarding claim 8:
The steering device according to claim 1, wherein: the first layer is made of metal plating (FIG. 4 depicts plating at 221, 251) applied to a flexible substrate (¶ 21).
However, Karasawa does not expressly disclose the substrate being a textile fabric.
Vendrand teaches a substrate being a textile fabric (¶ 54) ”) as one among several suitable materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Karasawa such that substrate being a textile fabric, as taught by Kihara, as one among several suitable materials and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa in view of Kihara, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Okazaki et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2017/0079089 A1; “Okazaki”).
Regarding claim 10, Karasawa as modified above teaches the limitation of claim 3, see above, including that the control unit includes a processor (3; FIG. 2 depicts electrical cables 2a by which signals are sent to the control unit for processing i.e. to a processor); and that the heater “generates heat according to a detection signal of the electrostatic capacitance sensor 2” (¶ 51). However, it does not expressly disclose that the processor is configured to: receive a detection result indicating a voltage value corresponding to capacitance detected by the detector, determine, as the gripping condition, whether or not the gripping part is gripped by the occupant based on a comparison of the voltage value of the detection result to a previously set grip determination threshold, and in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is not gripped, issue a notification that the gripping part is released.
Okazaki teaches that the processor is configured to: receive a detection result indicating a voltage value corresponding to capacitance detected by the detector, determine, as the gripping condition, whether or not the gripping part is gripped by the occupant based on a comparison of the voltage value of the detection result to a previously set grip determination threshold (¶ 29, “That is to say, when a driver grips grip 21 of steering wheel 70 and an electrostatic capacitance is accordingly changed, detection unit 15 measures the electrostatic capacitance, and converts it into a voltage. Then, when the voltage is a pre-set threshold or more, detection unit 15 outputs a signal indicating gripping by a hand to the control unit”), and in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is not gripped, issue a notification that the gripping part is released (¶ 68, “On-off control of switch 31 is carried out by heater control circuit 49” indicating switching the heat to an OFF mode, the lack of heat may act as a notification that the gripping part is released) for the purpose of providing a means to suppress power consumption by the heating system (¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Karasawa such that the processor is configured to: receive a detection result indicating a voltage value corresponding to capacitance detected by the detector, determine, as the gripping condition, whether or not the gripping part is gripped by the occupant based on a comparison of the voltage value of the detection result to a previously set grip determination threshold, and in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is not gripped, issue a notification that the gripping part is released, as taught by Okazaki, for the purpose of providing a means to suppress power consumption by the heating system.
Karasawa as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 12:
The steering device according to claim 3, wherein: the control unit includes a processor configured to: control conduction of electricity to the heater layer receive a detection result indicating a voltage value corresponding to capacitance detected by the detector, determine, as the gripping condition, whether or not the gripping part is gripped by the occupant based on a comparison of the voltage value of the detection result to a previously set grip determination threshold (¶ 29, “That is to say, when a driver grips grip 21 of steering wheel 70 and an electrostatic capacitance is accordingly changed, detection unit 15 measures the electrostatic capacitance, and converts it into a voltage. Then, when the voltage is a pre-set threshold or more, detection unit 15 outputs a signal indicating gripping by a hand to the control unit”), and in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is not gripped by the occupant, control a conduction of electricity to the heater layer to be switched to off-control to stop conduction of electricity to the heater layer (¶ 68, “On-off control of switch 31 is carried out by heater control circuit 49” indicating switching the heat to an OFF mode to suppress power/electricity from being delivered to the heating system).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa in view of Kihara, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Minoshima et al. (WO 2020/194931 A1; “Minoshima”).
Karasawa as modified above teaches:
Regarding claim 11, Karasawa as modified above teaches the limitations of claim 3, see above, but does not expressly disclose that the heat wire is provided on a non-woven fabric.
Minoshima teaches a heat wire provided on a non-woven fabric (pg. 2, “The heater layer 30 has a non-woven fabric and a heating wire (not shown) embedded in the non-woven fabric”) as a suitable configuration (pg. 6, “The structure of the heater layer is not particularly limited, and a heating wire or the like as a heat source may be arranged on the non-woven fabric or the polymer.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Karasawa such that the heat wire is provided on a non-woven fabric, as taught by Minoshima, as a suitable configuration and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa in view of Kihara and Okazaki, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Okazaki et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2017/0210408 A1; “Okazaki II”).
Regarding claim 13, Karasawa as modified above teaches the limitatnos of claim 12, see above, but does not expressly disclose that the processor is further configured to: in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is gripped determine whether the gripping part is gripped by the occupant for a predetermined period of time, and in response to determining that the gripping part is gripped by the occupant for the predetermined period, control the conduction of electricity to the heater layer to be switched to on-control to conduct electricity to the heater layer.
Okazaki II teaches a processor is further configured to: in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is gripped determine whether the gripping part is gripped by the occupant for a predetermined period of time (T1; FIG. 5; ¶¶ 46, 48), and in response to determining that the gripping part is gripped by the occupant for the predetermined period, control the conduction of electricity to the heater layer to be switched to on-control to conduct electricity to the heater layer (¶¶ 46, 48) so as to reduce false detection e.g. by the driver’s leg (¶ 51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Karasawa such that the processor is further configured to: in response to the gripping condition being that the gripping part is gripped determine whether the gripping part is gripped by the occupant for a predetermined period of time, and in response to determining that the gripping part is gripped by the occupant for the predetermined period, control the conduction of electricity to the heater layer to be switched to on-control to conduct electricity to the heater layer, as taught by Okazaki II, ) so as to reduce false detection e.g. by the driver’s leg.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 9/10/2025 have been fully considered and have required a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kihara, Okazaki, and Okazaki II, as described supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 on (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 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.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights