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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s)
Generic Placeholder or “means for”
Functional Language
Corresponding Structure
7
A detection “unit”
to detect a capacitance and an impedance generated in the electrode portion
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification
7
A determination “unit”
determine, based on the capacitance and the impedance detected by the detection unit, whether a hand of a driver is in contact with the steering wheel and whether the electrode portion is abnormal
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the column of the 112(f) grid entitled “Functional Language” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to a determination unit (Claim 7) and detection unit (Claim 7) does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 7 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 limitations:
“a detection unit” (claim 7, line 6)
“a determination unit” (claim 7, line 8)
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Because the amplifier device has no structure in the specification that matches the said amplifier device, it is unclear as to what the amplifier device is because the metes and bounds of said unit cannot be ascertained with certainty.
Because the evaluation device has no structure in the specification that matches the said evaluation device, it is unclear as to what the evaluation device is because the metes and bounds of said unit cannot be ascertained with certainty.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Faber et al (US 2022/0376691 A1, heretofore referred to as Faber).
Regarding claim 1, Faber teaches a contact determination method for determining contact of a driver with a steering wheel (Faber; Fig 1, Element 52 and Par 0072; Faber teaches a method for detecting a hand on a steering wheel) based on an electric signal detected from a sheet-shaped electrode portion (Faber; Fig 1, Elements 12, 14 and Par 0074; Faber teaches antenna electrodes in a layer, i.e. a sheet), the electrode portion being formed by laminating a first electrode (Faber; Fig 1, Element 12 and Par 0073; Faber teaches a first electrode on the rear side of the steering wheel) and a second electrode (Faber; Fig 1, Element 14 and Par 0073; Faber teaches a second electrode on the front of the steering wheel) with an insulator interposed between and being provided to cover an outer peripheral portion of the steering wheel (Faber; Fig 1, Element 52 and Par 0073-0075; Faber teaches a steering wheel being between the electrodes, which acts as an insulator galvanically separating them), the contact determination method comprising: a detection step of detecting a capacitance (Faber; Fig 1, Element 10 and Par 0076; Faber teaches capacitively detecting the hand) and an impedance generated in the electrode portion (Faber; Par 0078; Faber teaches detecting an impedance of the sensor); and a determination step of determining, based on the capacitance and the impedance detected in the detection step, whether a hand of a driver is in contact with the steering wheel (Faber; Par 0072 and Par 0091-0093; Faber teaches detecting the hand of the driver) and whether the electrode portion is abnormal (Faber; Fig 2 and Par 0094; Faber teaches monitoring the sensors to determine if the hands are not on the wheel, i.e. abnormal), wherein in the determination step, the electrode portion is determined to be abnormal when the capacitance exceeds a first threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Element 1c and Par 0101) and the impedance is less than a second threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Element 2c and Par 0101; Faber teaches a set of different threshold that are determined from the capacitance and impedance values).
Regarding claim 2, Faber teaches the contact determination method according to claim 1, wherein a fixed value is set as the first threshold (Faber; Par 0102; Faber teaches a preset threshold may be used), and a variable value that decreases as the capacitance increases is set as the second threshold (Faber; Par 0101; Faber teaches linear interpolation may be used to set the threshold).
Regarding claim 3, Faber teaches the contact determination method according to claim 1, wherein the second threshold is a value calculated based on the capacitance and a predetermined coefficient (Faber; Par 0103; Faber teaches the value is calculated by a predefined value and the characteristic value of the measured capacitance).
Regarding claim 7, Faber teaches a contact determination device that determines contact of a driver with a steering wheel (Faber; Fig 1, Element 52 and Par 0072; Faber teaches a method for detecting a hand on a steering wheel) based on an electric signal detected from a sheet-shaped electrode portion (Faber; Fig 1, Elements 12, 14 and Par 0074; Faber teaches antenna electrodes in a layer, i.e. a sheet), the electrode portion being formed by laminating a first electrode (Faber; Fig 1, Element 12 and Par 0073; Faber teaches a first electrode on the rear side of the steering wheel) and a second electrode (Faber; Fig 1, Element 14 and Par 0073; Faber teaches a second electrode on the front of the steering wheel) with an insulator interposed between and being provided to cover an outer peripheral portion of the steering wheel (Faber; Fig 1, Element 52 and Par 0073-0075; Faber teaches a steering wheel being between the electrodes, which acts as an insulator galvanically separating them and a leather steering wheel cover), the contact determination device comprising: a detection unit configured to detect a capacitance (Faber; Fig 1, Element 10 and Par 0076; Faber teaches capacitively detecting the hand) and an impedance generated in the electrode portion (Faber; Par 0078; Faber teaches detecting an impedance of the sensor); and a determination unit configured to determine, based on the capacitance and the impedance detected by the detection unit, whether a hand of a driver is in contact with the steering wheel (Faber; Par 0072 and Par 0091-0093; Faber teaches detecting the hand of the driver) and whether the electrode portion is abnormal (Faber; Fig 2 and Par 0094; Faber teaches monitoring the sensors to determine if the hands are not on the wheel, i.e. abnormal), wherein the determination unit determines that the electrode portion is abnormal when the capacitance exceeds a first threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Element 1c and Par 0101) and the impedance is less than a second threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Element 2c and Par 0101; Faber teaches a set of different threshold that are determined from the capacitance and impedance values).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber in view of Pedersen et al (US 2013/0069672 A1, heretofore referred to as Pedersen).
Regarding claim 4, Faber teaches the contact determination method according to claim 1.
Faber is silent on wherein in the determination step, the electrode portion is determined to be abnormal when the number of times that a moving average value of a predetermined number of the capacitances detected within a predetermined time exceeds the first threshold and a moving average value of a predetermined number of the impedances detected within the predetermined time is less than the second threshold is equal to or larger than a predetermined number.
Pedersen teaches wherein in the determination step, the electrode portion is determined to be abnormal when the number of times that a moving average value of a predetermined number of the capacitances detected within a predetermined time exceeds the first threshold (Pedersen; Fig 1, Element 112a and Par 0027; Pedersen teaches comparing a capacitance to a first threshold) and a moving average value of a predetermined number of the impedances detected within the predetermined time is less than the second threshold is equal to or larger than a predetermined number (Pedersen; Fig 1, Element 112b and Par 0027; Pedersen teaches comparing the capacitance portion of an impedance to a second threshold).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Faber with the moving average of Pedersen in order to suppress noise in the measurement (Pedersen; Par 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Faber teaches the contact determination method according to claim 1.
Faber further teaches wherein in the determination step, it is determined that a hand of a driver is not in contact with the steering wheel when a value of a predetermined number of the capacitances detected within a predetermined time is equal to or less than the first threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Par 0072 and Par 0091-0093; Faber teaches detecting the absence of the hand based on a first threshold not being exceeded), it is determined that a hand of a driver is in contact with the steering wheel when the value of the capacitances is larger than the first threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Par 0072 and Par 0091-0093; Faber teaches detecting the presence of the hand based on a first threshold being exceeded) and a value of a predetermined number of the impedances detected within the predetermined time is larger than the second threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Par 0072 and Par 0091-0093; Faber teaches detecting the absence of the hand based on a second threshold being exceeded), and it is determined that the electrode portion is abnormal when the value of the capacitances is larger than the first threshold and the value of the impedances is equal to or less than the second threshold (Faber; Fig 2, Par 0072 and Par 0091-0093; Faber teaches detecting the absence of the hand based on a second threshold being exceeded and the value of the first threshold has not been exceed).
Pedersen teaches values are moving average value (Pedersen; Fig 1, Elements 112a, 112b, and Par 0027; Pedersen teaches comparing a capacitance to a first threshold and a second threshold).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Faber with the moving average of Pedersen in order to suppress noise in the measurement (Pedersen; Par 0023).
Regarding claim 6, Faber teaches the contact determination method according to claim 1, wherein the electrode portion is configured such that the second electrode is disposed outside the steering wheel (Faber; Fig 1, Element 14 and Par 0073; Faber teaches a second electrode on the front of the steering wheel, i.e. outside) and the first electrode is disposed inside the steering wheel (Faber; Fig 1, Element 12 and Par 0073; Faber teaches a first electrode on the rear side of the steering wheel, i.e. inside).
Faber is silent on wherein in the detection step, the capacitance generated in the second electrode and the impedance generated between the first electrode and the second electrode are detected based on a difference between an alternating current signal input to the electrode portion and a response signal acquired in response to the alternating current signal.
Pedersen teaches wherein in the detection step, the capacitance generated in the second electrode (Pedersen; Fig 2, Element 201a) and the impedance generated between the first electrode (Pedersen; Fig 2, Element 201b) and the second electrode are detected based on a difference between an alternating current signal input (Pedersen; Fig 1, Element 101 and Par 0031; Pedersen teaches a oscillator to provide an alternating current to the sensor) to the electrode portion and a response signal acquired in response to the alternating current signal (Pedersen; Fig 2, Element 200 and Par 0030; Pedersen teaches a differential capacitive sensor).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Faber with the moving average of Pedersen in order to provide a more accurate measurement even with poor ground coupling (Pedersen; Par 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Bytheway et al teaches a body position sensor using capacitance and impedance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights