DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claim 7, “and is also disposed” should be changed to “and the sensor unit is also disposed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the term “close proximity” in line 3 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what distance between a human body and the steering wheel is define as close proximity.
Regarding claims 2-8, claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 2-8 depends on all claim limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, in lines 4-5 of claim 4 recites “a variation width of a capacitance value”, capacitance value is a value of capacitor and width is a value of distance, and it is not clear how a distance can be a part of a capacitor value.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, claims5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 5 and 8 depends on all claim limitation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 2-3 of claim 5 recites “a variation width of a capacitance value”, capacitance value is a value of capacitor and width is a value of distance, and it is not clear how a distance can be a part of a capacitor value.
Regarding claim 7, the term “close proximity” in line 5 of claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what distance between a human body and the steering wheel is define as close proximity.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osako (WO 2020195620 A1), and further in view of Takai et al. (JP 2013-235313 A) found in IDS (with receipt date 07/07/2025).
Regarding independent claim 1, Osako teaches a steering apparatus (see figs. 8 and 9, steering apparatus as shown in fig. 8) comprising:
a steering wheel (see fig. 8, steering wheel 100); and
a sensor unit configured to detect contact or close proximity of a human body to the steering wheel (see figs. 8 and 9, abstract, steering wheel sensor 102 having a capacitive sensor 130 with a plurality of electrodes 130a-130g and a capacitance sensor 131 to detect contact with or is in close proximity to an object (a driver as describe in paragraph 1 of “Explanation of conventional steering wheel)), wherein the sensor unit includes:
a plurality of electrodes provided in the steering wheel (see figs. 8 and 9, abstract, steering wheel sensor 102 having a capacitive sensor 130 with a plurality of electrodes 130a-130g); and
an additional electrode disposed with the plurality of electrodes (see figs. 8 and 9, abstract, a capacitance sensor 131 disposed with the plurality of electrodes 130a-130g of the capacitance sensor 130).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Osako is silent with regard to a plurality of correction electrodes each disposed on a face of a corresponding electrode among the plurality of electrodes, for correcting a capacitance value derived from the corresponding electrode.
Takai teaches a correction electrode disposed on a face of a corresponding electrode (see figs. 1-2, [0018] and [0021], reference electrode 3 dispose on a face of detection electrode 1 via base material 2), for correcting a capacitance value derived from the corresponding electrode (this limitation is intended use, no patentable weight, figs. 1-2, [0018] and [0021], for correcting capacitance in non-operation state when no operation by a finger 11 of an operator).
PNG
media_image2.png
707
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would produce a predictive result of disposing a plurality of reference electrode correction electrode on correspond the plurality of electrodes 130a-130g of Osako, for the purpose of improving detection accuracy and sensitivity the sensor by compensation capacitances changes between operation and on-operation sates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Osako by applying the teaching of Takai to have a plurality of correction electrodes each disposed on a face of a corresponding electrode among the plurality of electrodes, for correcting a capacitance value derived from the corresponding electrode, for the purpose of improving detection accuracy and sensitivity the sensor by compensation capacitances changes between operation and on-operation sates.
Regarding claim 2 (claim 2 depends on claim 1), combination of Osako and Takai teaches wherein the correction electrodes are each disposed in a longitudinal direction along the face of the corresponding electrode among the plurality of electrodes (e.g. as a result of the combination of Osako and Takai, each correction electrode is disposed in a longitudinal direction along the face of the corresponding electrode in a manner as the reference electrode 3 and detection electrode 1 shown in fig. 1 of Takai).
Regarding claim 3 (claim 3 depends on claim 1), combination of Osako and Takai teaches 3. The steering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction electrodes are each configured linearly along the face of the corresponding electrode among the plurality of electrodes (e.g. as a result of the combination of Osako and Takai, each correction electrode is disposed linearly along the face of the corresponding electrode in a manner as the reference electrode 3 and detection electrode 1 shown in fig. 1 of Takai).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osako (WO 2020195620 A1) in view of Takai et al. (JP 2013-235313 A) found in IDS (with receipt date 07/07/2025), and further in view of Lathrop et al. (US 2014/0277896).
Regarding claim 6 (claim 6 depends on claim 1), combination of Osako and Takai teaches wherein the steering wheel comprises:
a rim portion having an annular shape (Osako, see fig. 8, rim 110);
a hub portion provided on an inner side of the rim portion (Osako, see fig. 8, center hub portion at the inner center side of rim 110 connects left side of spoke 120, right side of spoke 120 and lower side of spoke 120); and
a spoke portion extending from the hub portion in a radial direction of the rim portion and connecting the hub portion with an inner circumferential portion of the rim portion (Osako, see fig. 8, left side spoke portion, right side spoke portion, and lower spoke portion each extending form the center hub portion with inner circumferential side of rim 110), and the sensor unit is disposed on the spoke portion (Osako, fig. 8, steering wheel sensor 102 having a capacitive sensor 130 with a plurality of electrodes 130a-130g disposed in corresponding left side spoke portion, right side spoke portion, and lower spoke portion).
However, combination of Osako and Takai is silent with regard to the sensor unit is disposed in a function switch unit disposed on the spoke portion.
Lathrop teaches sensor unit is disposed in a function switch unit disposed on the spoke portion (“a function switch unit” is interpreted in view of paragraph [0026] of applicant’s published application, operation console unit is referred as a function witch, Lathrop, see fig 10, [0052], touch sensors corresponding touch screens 1006 units disposed on corresponding left side spoke and right side spoke).
It would produce a predictive result of dispose the sensor unit to the touch screen units dispose on corresponding spokes, for the purpose of allowing the drive to perform touch operation more easily and conveniently to improve user operating experiences and/or encouraging the driver to keep the driver’s hands on the steering wheel at all times (Lathrop, [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Osako and Takai by applying the teaching of Lathrop to have the sensor unit is disposed in a function switch unit disposed on the spoke portion, for the purpose of allowing the drive to perform touch operation more easily and conveniently to improve user operating experiences and/or encouraging the driver to keep the driver’s hands on the steering wheel at all times (Lathrop, [0013]).
Regarding claim 7 (claim 7 depends on claim 6), combination of Osako, Takai and Lathrop teaches wherein the spoke portion is provided on a left side and a right side in a front view from a driver seat (Lathrop, figs. 2A and 10, left touch screen 1006 disposed in left side spoke portion on left side in front view of a driver seat and right touch screen 1006 disposed in right side spoke portion on right side in front view of the driver seat as shown in figs. 2A and 10) between the rim portion to be gripped by an occupant and the hub portion (e.g. Lathrop, figs. 10, between steering wheel rim 1002 and hub portion 1008), and
the sensor unit is disposed on the spoke portion on the left side and the spoke portion on the right side (as a result of the combination of Osako, Takai and Lathrop, Lathrop fig. 10, the sensor unit disposed touch screens dispose on corresponding left side spoke portion and right spoke portion), and is also disposed in close proximity to a component part for performing at least one operation of a vehicle information operation or a driving support function operation in the function switch unit (e.g. Lathrop, fig. 10, [0052], driver’s touch on touch screens to perform touch operation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 is properly overcome without broadening the scopes of claims 4-5 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (571) 272-7924. 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.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights