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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 05/22/2026.
Claims 8-14 have been presented for examination.
Claims 8-14 are currently rejected.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0167045) in view of Breisinger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0023830).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on 05/22/2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-14 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Breisinger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0023830).
Claim Interpretation
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: “a control unit” in claim 8 and “selection device” in claims 10 and 12.
However, support for “a control unit” and “selection device” may be found in at least paragraphs 7-8 of the instant specification describing a selection device to comprise a multifunction steering wheel, and wherein the selection device further comprises the control unit.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0167045) in view of Breisinger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0023830).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses a selection device of a vehicle, of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is configurable in: a first equipment variant that includes a first driver assistance function exclusive of a second driver assistance function (Takahashi Fig. 4 depicts that a first drive assistance function such as road sign assist may be used exclusively from a second drive assistance function such as radar cruise control being used exclusively for a highway travel state, and road sign assist being used exclusively as a setting element. Also see corresponding ¶ 137.), and a second equipment variant that includes the first driver assistance function and the second driver assistance function, the selection device comprising:
a multifunction steering wheel having an operating element ...; and (Takahashi ¶ 108 “The driver of the vehicle 10 can change the set states (setting values, parameters) related to the driving assistance functions by operation (manipulation) to the selection switch 56 and the OK switch 57 arranged on the steering wheel 55 shown in FIG. 5 while referring to screens displayed on the display 27.” See the multifunction steering wheel in Fig. 5 having the operating elements and switch.)
a control unit (Takahashi Fig. 2 driving assistance ECU 20) configured such that:
in the first equipment variant, the control unit: controls [a] display to display a first indicator assigned to the first driver assistance function, and (Takahashi ¶ 109 discloses that “the drive assistance ECU 20 selectively displays one of the predefined screens,” such that “When the driver changes the set states related to the driving assistance functions, various “screens” are switched to be displayed on the display 27.” Also see ¶ 3 disclosing that the control parameters “determine whether to bring respective driving assistance functions into an inactivated or an activated state and control parameters of driving assistance functions.” Also see ¶ 108 "The driver of the vehicle 10 can change [i.e., assign] the set states (setting values, parameters) [i.e., equipment variant] related to the driving assistance functions by operation (manipulation) to the selection switch 56 and the OK switch 57," wherein “The driver selects one of the selection elements contained (included) in a screen displayed on the display 27,” see ¶ 111. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that changing set states related to a driving assistance function indicates different equipment variants (e.g., a “first equipment variant” and a “second equipment variant”) necessary to serve the corresponding driving assistance function, as the parameters are variants for the operations of the vehicle.)
assigns the first driver assistance function to the operating element such that operation of the operating element activates and/or deactivates the first driver assistance function, and (Takahashi ¶ 26 discloses “changing the set state relating to a certain driving assistance function until the operation state of that driving assistance function come to match with the driver's preference,” also see ¶ 27 “setting procedure checking operation ... is selected as the preferentially displayed element,” such that “Changing processing of the set state related to the driving assistance functions executed [i.e., activated] responding to the operation,” see ¶ 78. The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “such that”); therefore, the element of “operation of the operating element activates and/or deactivates the first driver assistance function” is not expressly required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
in the second equipment variant, the control unit: controls the display to display a second indicator assigned to the second driver assistance function (Takahashi Fig. 4 depicts a second indicator having an assigned second driver assistance function, e.g., “road sign assist” and “radar cruise control”), and
assigns the second driver assistance function to the operating element such that operation of the operating element activates and/or deactivates the second driver assistance function. (Takahashi in at least ¶ 111 discloses that the driver assistance functions are selected [i.e., assigned] by the driver, “The driver selects one of the selection elements contained (included) in a screen displayed on the display 27 by use of the selection switch 56 and the OK switch 57,” and “When one of the setting elements is selected, the drive assistance ECU 20 changes the set state with which the selected setting element is associated [i.e., activated],” see ¶ 113. Also see Fig. 4 depicting at least a first and second driver assistance function, which may be set or assigned and may be exclusive of each other. The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “such that”); therefore, the element of “operation of the operating element activates and/or deactivates the first driver assistance function” is not expressly required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
a multifunction steering wheel having ... a display;
However, Breisinger discloses:
a multifunction steering wheel having ... a display; (Breisinger in at least ¶ 29 discloses a steering wheel display integrated into the steering wheel, wherein the steering wheel display includes a driver-side selection of a first and second driving mode, see ¶¶ 56 and 64. Also see Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the multifunction steering wheel having an operating element of Takashi with a display, as disclosed by Breisinger, with reasonable expectation of success, so that a second illumination state can be distinguished from a first illumination state by a driver (Breisinger, Abstract), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the display of Takahashi to be on the steering wheel, as taught by Breisinger, with reasonable expectation of success, so that the steering wheel display may light up in a state differentiable by the driver without requiring hand application to the steering wheel (Breisinger ¶ 53), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Additionally, utilizing a display to convey information may be considered routine and conventional by one having ordinary skill in the art, as demonstrated by Breisinger. Integrating the display of Breisinger into the steering wheel of Takahashi would reasonably produce a multifunction steering wheel having an operating element and a display, rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification. See MPEP 2143(C).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi in combination with Breisinger discloses the selection device of claim 8, wherein:
the first driver assistance function is a speed limiter and the second driver assistance function is an adaptive speed regulation. (Takahashi ¶ 95 discloses “A radar cruise control function is a function for controlling the acceleration As such that a distance between the vehicle 10 and “an other proceeding vehicle (hereinafter also referred to as a “following target vehicle”) traveling ahead of the vehicle 10″ coincides with a predetermined target inter-vehicular distance without driver's operation to the accelerator pedal”)
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi in combination with Breisinger discloses the selection device of claim 9, wherein:
the selection device is configured to detect information about exceeding of the permissible highest speed and, (Takahashi ¶ 94 “a screen (a top screen 61 described later) displayed on the display 27 shown in FIG. 7, a roadway sign 81 represents a speed limit sign recognized by the road sign assist function.” Also see Fig. 7.)
depending on the detection, to display the first display and to activate the first driver assistance function upon actuation of the operating element. (Takahashi ¶ 133 discloses that the preferentially displayed element region 61a contains “a button 78a which is a transition element related to the radar cruise control function and a button 78b which is a setting element related to the lane tracing assist function” such that the setting screen related to the driving assistance function is highlighted “when that setting screen starts to be displayed is highlighted. In the example shown in FIG. 10, the request state of lane tracing assist function is set at the ON state.”)
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi in combination with Breisinger discloses the selection device of claim 8, wherein:
the selection device has an input unit, by means of which the display and/or the function assigned to the operating element are settable. (Takahashi ¶ 108 discloses “The driver of the vehicle 10 can change the set states (setting values, parameters) related to the driving assistance functions by operation (manipulation) to the selection switch 56 and the OK switch 57 arranged on the steering wheel 55 shown in FIG. 5 while referring to screens displayed on the display 27” such that “the driver operates the operation section so as to change the set states related to the driving assistance functions”)
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi in combination with Breisinger discloses the selection device of claim 8, wherein:
the selection device is configured to detect a change from the first equipment variant to the second equipment variant and, (Takahashi ¶ 109 discloses “When the driver changes the set states related to the driving assistance functions, various “screens” are switched to be displayed on the display 27. Various “display elements” are contained in each of the screens.” Also see Fig. 4 depicting at least a first and second equipment variant corresponding to first and second driver assistance functions.)
upon the detected change, to display the second display and to activate and/or deactivate the second driver assistance function upon an operation of the operating element. (Takahashi ¶ 129 discloses that “Each of the selection elements contained in the preferentially displayed element region 61a corresponds to the drive assistance function of which the set state is likely to be (has high possibility of being) changed by the driver who is currently on the vehicle 10 at the present time.”)
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi in combination with Breisinger discloses the vehicle comprising:
the selection device of claim 8. (Takahashi in at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi in combination with Breisinger discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above.
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights