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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on May 6, 2026. Claims 22-41 were previously pending, of which claims 22, 23, 26-29, 32, 34, 35, and 38-40 have been amended, claims 33 and 41 have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 22-32 and 34-40 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-11 filed May 6, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendment to claims 22, 32 and 34 and cancellation of claim 33 have addressed the condition using control unit, communication module, voice input module, and display unit to support the remaining limitations for claims mentioned that are defined by “modules” and “units” so the interpretation is hereby withdrawn by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112 (a)/(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendment has canceled claim 33 and 41 recited in the rejection, foregoing the condition. However, the new limitation of “controller” introduced in claims 22 and 34 is considered new matter unsupported by the specification. Therefore, a new rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) has been issued in light of the amended claims below.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection, the arguments and amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, but they are not persuasive. The basic elements of the invention are merely data gathering or presenting information with insignificant extra solution activity in the further limitations. Therefore, the rejection is upheld.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/ 103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-32 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to recite the limitation for a “controller” regardless of the means plus function interpretation of such a device as described using the previous “control unit” in claims 22, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 38 and 39 perform the claimed function of “a predetermined function based on the distinct electric signal received from the switch”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For purposes of the examination the controller will be interpreted as the previously described control unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-27, 29-32, 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Santucci et al., US 2023/0041105A1 (Hereinafter, “Santucci”).
Regarding Claims 22 and 34, Santucci discloses a system to operate voice control for a vehicle, comprising: a switch (21); a controller (23) operatively coupled to the switch, the controller having a communication module (5); See at least Fig.1 and [0007], “method for imparting commands to a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle comprises: a central control unit, at least one steered wheel, and a steering member for acting on the steered wheel. The method comprises a step of activating, by means of an interface device (switch) on the steering member, a voice recognition function on a mobile device (communication module) interfaced with the central control unit.” And [0026], “The interface device 21 is connected with the central control unit 23 by means of a connection schematically indicated with 27.”
a safety gear (3) configured to communicate with the controller, See at least [0021], “The smartphone 5 is provided with a microphone to allow the driver 2 to communicate vocally with the smartphone 5 … by means of a Bluetooth connection. They can be inserted into the helmet 3, or integrated therein.”
wherein the voice input module receives voice input from a rider and establishes communication with the controller when the switch is actuated, See at least [0043], “The interface device 21 (switch) can also be used to impart different commands or instructions, such as activation and subsequent deactivation of voice recognition.”
the switch is configured to be actuated in one or more positions by the rider, the switch based on the position of actuation generates a distinct electric signal, and the controller is configured to perform a predetermined function based on the distinct electric signal received from the switch.
See at least Fig.3 and [0044], “the interface device 21 (switch) can be provided with different components, for example a plurality of buttons, or a joystick that can be moved in different directions.” Note: switch operation in an electrical circuit as shown in Fig.3.
Regarding Claims 23 and 35, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22 and 34:
wherein the one or more actuation positions include forward position, rear position, left position, right position in a vehicle front-rear direction and centre. See at least Fig.3 and [0044], “the interface device 21 (switch) can be provided with different components … a joystick that can be moved in different directions.” Note: joystick operation can account for all five positions in the claim as shown in Fig.2.
Regarding Claims 24 and 36, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 22 and 34:
wherein the switch (21) is configured to generate an electric signal for activating voice control when operated in the centre position for a first predetermined time. See at least [0044], “driver 2 can impart different commands by pressing the button once or more than once, or pressing and holding the button for different times, for example a short pressure to activate voice recognition, or a longer pressure to allow execution of the instruction imparted by means of the voice command or vice versa.”
Regarding Claims 25 and 37, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 24 and 36:
wherein the switch (21) is configured to generate an electric signal for deactivating voice control when operated again in the centre position for the first predetermined time. See at least [0043], “The interface device 21 can also be used to impart different commands or instructions, such as activation and subsequent deactivation of voice recognition.” And [0044], “driver 2 can impart different commands by pressing the button once or more than once, or pressing and holding the button for different times, for example a short pressure to activate voice recognition, or a longer pressure to allow execution of the instruction imparted by means of the voice command or vice versa.” While the deactivation function time is not explicitly disclosed, it would be obvious to one in the art to press the button again momentarily after activation in [0044] to deactivate the process as disclosed in [0043].
Regarding Claims 26 and 38, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 24 and 36:
wherein the controller is configured to deactivate voice control when the switch (21) is not operated for a second predetermined time. See at least [0040], “the driver acts on the interface device 21 (switch), so that the central control unit 23 transmits a voice recognition activation command to the smartphone 5 connected thereto.” And [0042], “The application of the smartphone 5 can be programmed to deactivate voice recognition … predetermined period of time after activation.”
Regarding Claim 27 and 39, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 24 and 36:
wherein the control unit is configured to deactivate voice control when the voice control is not used for a third predetermined time. See at least [0038], “The application of the smartphone 5 can be programmed to deactivate voice recognition immediately after having imparted the instruction corresponding to the voice command received. Otherwise, voice recognition can remain active for a predetermined period of time after activation.”
Regarding Claim 29, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the controller is configured to perform a predetermined function based on the corresponding electric signal generated by the switch. See at least [0047], “FIG. 4 summarizes in a flow chart a possible embodiment of a method according to the invention. In the block 101 the driver 2 activates the interface device 21 (switch). The central control unit 23 sends a voice recognition activation command to the smartphone 5. The block 102 verifies whether voice recognition is available.”
Regarding Claim 30, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the vehicle (1) is a saddle type vehicle having the switch (21) mounted on a handlebar (11) of the saddle type vehicle. See at least Fig.1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 31, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 22:
wherein the safety gear comprises a helmet to be worn by the rider. See at least [0015], “FIG. 1 shows a motor vehicle driven by a driver wearing a helmet.”
Regarding Claim 32, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the controller(5) and the safety gear communicate over a wireless network. See at least [0010], “By placing the voice recognition activation interface on the steering member, typically a handlebar, the driver can activate voice recognition in complete safety, without lifting the hand off the handlebar or other steering member.” And [0021], “The smartphone (communication module/controller) 5 is provided with a microphone to allow the driver 2 to communicate vocally with the smartphone 5 … microphone 9 can be connected to the smartphone 5 …. preferably with a wireless connection, for example by means of a Bluetooth connection.”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 28 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santucci, in view of Official Car Reviews “2019 MAZDA USER GUIDE - HOW-TO - Mazda6, Mazda3, CX9, CX5, CX3 and Others” (Hereinafter ”Mazda”), published September 29, 2018.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiMtBCPsD18).
Regarding Claims 28 and 40, Santucci discloses a voice control system for a motorcycle, but he does not disclose a multifunction switch. However, Mazda teaches a voice control system dependent on Claims 22 and 34:
wherein the switch is configured to generate an electric signal corresponding to a plurality of functions including accepting or rejecting incoming phone calls (Time: 5:30),
changing volume or pausing music (Time:11:40),
navigating a screen installed in the vehicle (Time: 4:00),
viewing stored documents in a storage device of the vehicle (Time: 20:20)
when operated in the forward position, rear position, left position, and right position in a vehicle front-rear direction (Time: 7:00).
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Santucci’s voice control device with the multifunction switch limitations disclosed in Mazda with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide safer driving functions, see Mazda [Time:1:00].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights