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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 6/28/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR-2022-0079036 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the sectional views of FIG. 14 must use hatching in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84 to indicate section portions of an object. See MPEP 608.02. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2020/0292064 A1; “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1:
A multi-function switch device (10; FIG. 1) comprising a plurality of switch units (300, 400, 500) disposed so as to be spaced apart from each other in a housing (100; FIG. 1-2 depict the switch units longitudinally spaced apart e.g. along substrate 200 in FIG. 2), wherein each of the plurality of switch units is at least partially disposed on a single substrate (200; FIG. 2 depicts the fixed switch units 363, 523, 463 disposed on the single substrate 200).
Regarding claim 2:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of switch units comprises: a composite switch unit (300, 400) configured to detect both an axial rotation about a shaft located at least partially within the housing (via switch unit 300; ¶ 73) and an axial movement in an axial direction (via switch unit 400); and a button switch unit (500; FIG. 1) at one end disposed on the other peripheral surface of the housing (100) so as to be exposed to the outside (depicted in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 2, wherein the composite switch unit comprises: a composite knob (300, 400) disposed on the outer side of the housing (composite knob 300, 400 protrudes from the right-hand side of housing 100 as depicted in FIG. 1);
a composite sensing holder part (361) configured to be axially rotatable or movable in response to the movement of the composite knob (¶ 115); a composite sensing moving part (350, 351) disposed at the composite sensing holder part (¶ 115) ; and a composite sensing fixed part (363) disposed on the substrate so as to correspond to the position of the composite sensing moving part (depicted in FIG. 2) and configured to detect the movement state of the composite sensing moving part (¶ 116).
Regarding claim 4:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein the composite sensing holder part comprises: a sensing holder (355) configured to allow the composite sensing moving part to be disposed therein (¶ 108), the sensing holder being movable relative to the composite knob; and a sensing elastic part (373) configured to allow the sensing holder to return its original position when an external force applied to the composite knob for the axial movement of the sensing holder is removed (¶¶ 126-127).
Regarding claim 5:
The multi-function switch device (10) according to claim 4, wherein the sensing holder comprises: a holder body (at 3573 in FIG. 5) configured to allow the composite sensing moving part to be seated thereon (depicted in FIG. 5); a holder-connecting shaft (at 3551 in FIG. 5) connected at one end to the holder body; and a holder support (353; FIG. 5) connected to the other end of the holder-connecting shaft (via element 354 in FIG. 5) so to be movable relative to the housing (353 rotates with respect to housing 100 about axis of shaft 3551; ¶ 130).
Regarding claim 6:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 5, wherein the holder support has a non-circular cross-sectional shape (FIG. 5 depicts the cross sectional shape of 353 as NOT being circular; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 10:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein when the composite sensing moving part is projected onto the substrate (FIG. 5 depicts the sensing moving part 361 facing the substrate 200 i.e. being projected onto the substrate 200), the composite sensing fixed parts are overlapped with at least a part of the inside of the projection area of the composite sensing moving part (depicted in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 11:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein the normal to one surface of the substrate (vertical direction in FIG. 5) and the axis of the axial rotation of the composite sensing moving part (lateral direction per the rotation axis of portion 351) are arranged to be orthogonal to each other (vertical direction is perpendicular to the lateral direction, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 12:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein the housing further comprises a housing holder guide (421; FIG. 9) configured to guide the axial movement of the composite sensing holder part (¶ 37).
Regarding claim 13:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein the housing further comprises a housing rotary guide (431) configured to guide the axial rotation of the composite sensing holder part (FIG. 5 depicts guide 431 rotatably supporting the shaft 320; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 14:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein the composite knob comprises: a composite rotary knob (310; FIG. 5) disposed at one end of the housing so as to be axially rotatable (¶ 76); and a composite axial knob (410 ) disposed at an end of the composite rotary knob so as to be movable in the longitudinal direction of the rotary axis of the composite rotary knob (¶ 134).
Regarding claim 15:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 3, wherein the composite sensing moving part comprises a magnet or a ferromagnetic material (¶ 22, “rotary switching moving part 361 may be a magnet”).
Regarding claim 16:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 2, wherein the button switch unit comprises: a button switch knob (510) disposed so as to be exposed to the outside (seen at 500 in FIG. 1); a button switch sensing fixed part (523; FIG. 3) disposed on the substrate (200; FIG. 2); and a button switch sensing moving part (525; FIG. 2) connected at one end to the underside of the button switch knob (at 525 depicted in FIG. 2) and connected at the other end to the top of the button switch sensing fixed part (at 525 depicted in FIG. 2) to form a signal change of the button switch sensing fixed part (¶ 179).
Regarding claim 17:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 2, wherein the substrate is positioned inside the housing (depicted in FIG. 2) in such a manner as to be disposed oppositely spaced apart from the exposed portion of the button switch unit (500), and the composite switch unit (300) is at least partially disposed in a space defined between the substrate (200) and the exposed portion of the button switch unit (500).
Regarding claim 18:
The multi-function switch device according to claim 2, wherein the substrate (200) is positioned inside the housing (100) in such a manner as to be disposed in proximity to the exposed portion of the button switch unit FIG. 2 depicts the substrate 200 being adjacent to button switch unit 500; MPEP § 2125).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 3, see above, including a composite sensing fixed part in a single number (363 in FIG. 2). but does not expressly disclose that the composite sensing fixed part is provided in a plural number.
It would have been obvious to provide the composite sensing fixed part is provided in a plural number since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.); see MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)."[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of operatively connecting additional sensor parts 363 to the substrate 200 in the same or similar manner as that of sensor 363. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of operatively connecting additional sensor parts 363 to the substrate 200 in the same or similar manner as that of sensor 363 to e.g. provide a redundancy measure in case of failure of one of the sensors 363 i.e. to increase durability of the sensing unit.
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified above does not expressly disclose that the respective distances between the center of the axial rotation of the composite sensing moving part and the plurality of composite sensing fixed parts are the same as each other on a plane perpendicular to the rotary axis of the composite sensing moving part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the respective distances between the center of the axial rotation of the composite sensing moving part and the plurality of composite sensing fixed parts are the same as each other on a plane perpendicular to the rotary axis of the composite sensing moving part as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)( the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, nowhere in the original disclosure does it disclose or suggest that the claimed distances being the “same” as recited in the claim would cause the claimed invention to perform any differently than that of the prior art device. For example, paragraph [0086]-[0087] of the instant specification discloses that the claimed distances need not be the “same” but may be different from each other. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified above does not expressly disclose that the respective distances between the center of the axial rotation of the composite sensing moving part and the plurality of composite sensing fixed parts are different from each other on a plane perpendicular to the 4 rotary axis of the composite sensing moving part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the respective distances between the center of the axial rotation of the composite sensing moving part and the plurality of composite sensing fixed parts are different from each other on a plane perpendicular to the 4 rotary axis of the composite sensing moving part as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)( the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, nowhere in the original disclosure does it disclose or suggest that the claimed distances being “different” as recited in the claim would cause the claimed invention to perform any differently than that of the prior art device. For example, paragraph [0083], [0086]-[0087] of the instant specification discloses that the claimed distances need not “different” but may be the same as each other. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Nolan (U.S. Patent No. 2,557,887 A; “Nolan”).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 2, see above, including that the composite switch unit is a shift range selector switch configured to select the shift range of the vehicle (¶ 130; FIG. 1 depicts the status shift range at 600) and that the button switch unit may take on various forms other than the particular embodiment of a park release (¶ 179). However, it does not expressly disclose that the button switch unit is a start switch for the vehicle.
Nolan teaches a button switch unit (3) being a start switch for a vehicle (col. 2, ll. 15 “starter button 3”) for ease of accessibility to the start switch by the driver/operator (col. 1, ll. “The object of this invention is to provide a starter button which is so located in relation to the driving wheel and gear shift as to greatly facilitate the technique of driving a car. By locating the button at the end of the gear shift lever, it is then easily accessible to the operator.”).
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, Kim such that the button switch unit is a start switch for the vehicle, as taught by Nolan, for ease of accessibility to the start switch by the driver/operator.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Pryor (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2005/0276448 A1; “Pryor”).
Kim discloses:
Regarding claim 20:
A multi-function switch module comprising: a multi-function switch device (10; FIG. 1) comprising a plurality of switch units (300, 400, 500) disposed spaced apart from each other in a housing (100; depicted in FIG. 1), wherein each of the plurality of switch units is at least partially disposed on a single substrate (200; depicted in FIG. 2);
However, Kim does not expressly disclose a storage unit configured to a detected initial state value of at least one of the plurality of switch units and a preset value used as an operation state determination criterion of at least one of the plurality of switch units; and a control unit configured to calibrate an actually detected state value or the preset value of at least one of the plurality of switch units based on the initial state value stored in the storage unit.
Pryor teaches a storage unit (¶ 25, “look up tables correlating movement or control variable change to image change”) configured to a detected initial state value (¶ 25 “movement or control variable change” involved in the “calibration”) of at least one of a plurality of switch units (abstract describes “multi-functional controls” including “knobs, sliders, and switches”) and a preset value (¶ 25, “image change” involved in the “calibration”) used as an operation state determination criterion of at least one of the plurality of switch units (involved in the “calibration” described in ¶ 25); and a control unit (¶ 25, “control system”) configured to calibrate an actually detected state value or the preset value of at least one of the plurality of switch units based on the initial state value stored in the storage unit (¶ 25, “The ability of the invention to programmably change such controls, and to deal with their calibration (for example, via look up tables correlating movement or control variable change to image change) and to set the control system zero at arbitrary non-mechanical zero positions of the physical control is very interesting and useful.”) as a means ensure that the controls/switch units are returned to a zero position (¶ 25).
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, Kim to include a storage unit configured to a detected initial state value of at least one of the plurality of switch units and a preset value used as an operation state determination criterion of at least one of the plurality of switch units; and a control unit configured to calibrate an actually detected state value or the preset value of at least one of the plurality of switch units based on the initial state value stored in the storage unit, as taught by Pryor, as a means ensure that the controls/switch units are returned to a zero position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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