DETAILED ACTION
This is the second office action on the merits of the instant application, and is in response to Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed March 19, 2026, wherein claims 1 and 5 are amended and new claim 6 is presented for consideration. Claims 1-6 remain in the application.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hyuga et al. (US 2020/0065595 A1).
Hyuga et al. teaches, according to claims 1-2, a safety apparatus to be mounted on a manual driving apparatus, the safety apparatus comprising a controller and a distance sensor configured to measure, in a non- contact manner, a distance between the manual driving apparatus and a driver operating the manual driving apparatus, the controller being configured to:
measure, using the distance sensor, the distance while a vehicle is traveling; and
transmit a deceleration stop request to the manual driving apparatus when the distance measured by the distance sensor exceeds a threshold (Hyuga et al., at least para. [0092], “In step S6, when it is judged that the distance A is within the range wherein the steering wheel can be appropriately operated, the processing is ended. On the other hand, when it is judged that the distance A is not within the range wherein the steering wheel can be appropriately operated, the operation goes to step S7.”; and para. [0093], “In step S7, a driving operation impossible signal is output to the HMI 40 and the automatic vehicle operation control device 50, and thereafter, the processing is ended. The HMI 40, when the driving operation impossible signal is input thereto, for example, performs a display giving an alarm about the driving attitude or seat position on the display section 41, and an announcement giving an alarm about the driving attitude or seat position by the voice output section 42. The automatic vehicle operation control device 50, when the driving operation impossible signal is input thereto, for example, performs speed reduction control.”).
Regarding claim 2, the threshold is an upper limit of a distance between the driver and the manual driving apparatus that is required for the driver to operate the manual driving apparatus (Hyuga et al., at least para. [0091], “In step S6, by reading out a range wherein the driver can reach the steering wheel stored in the RAM 13 or the storage section 15 so as to conduct a comparison operation, whether the distance A is within the range wherein the steering wheel can be appropriately operated (distance D.sub.1<distance A<distance D.sub.2) is decided. The distance range from the distance D.sub.1 to the distance D.sub.2 is a distance range wherein it is estimated that the driver 30 can operate the steering wheel 32 in a state of sitting in the driver's seat 31, and for example, the distances D.sub.1 and D.sub.2 can be set to be about 40 cm and 80 cm, respectively.”).
Regarding claim 6, the distance sensor is disposed at a position on the manual driving apparatus free from being gripped by the driver (Hyuga et al., at least Fig. 3).
Hyuga et al. teaches, according to claim 5, a control method performed by a safety apparatus mounted on a manual driving apparatus, the safety apparatus comprising a distance sensor configured to measure, in a non-contact manner, a distance between the manual driving apparatus and a driver operating the manual driving apparatus, the control method comprising: measuring, using the distance sensor, the distance while a vehicle is traveling; and transmitting a deceleration stop request to the manual driving apparatus when the measured distance measured by the distance sensor exceeds a threshold (Hyuga et al., at least para. [0092], “In step S6, when it is judged that the distance A is within the range wherein the steering wheel can be appropriately operated, the processing is ended. On the other hand, when it is judged that the distance A is not within the range wherein the steering wheel can be appropriately operated, the operation goes to step S7.”; and para. [0093], “In step S7, a driving operation impossible signal is output to the HMI 40 and the automatic vehicle operation control device 50, and thereafter, the processing is ended. The HMI 40, when the driving operation impossible signal is input thereto, for example, performs a display giving an alarm about the driving attitude or seat position on the display section 41, and an announcement giving an alarm about the driving attitude or seat position by the voice output section 42. The automatic vehicle operation control device 50, when the driving operation impossible signal is input thereto, for example, performs speed reduction control.”).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga et al. in view of Okazaki et al. (US 2018/0327016 A1).
Hyuga et al. teaches the elements of claims 1-2 above, but does not expressly teach, where Okazaki et al. teaches, a pair of touch sensors attached to a steering wheel of the manual driving apparatus and configured to detect contact of both palms of the driver, wherein the controller is configured to activate the distance sensor and measure the distance between the manual driving apparatus and the driver when at least one of the pair of touch sensors does not detect contact by a palm of the driver (Okazaki et al., at least para. [0005], “If a hand of the driver comes close to the steering wheel and ultimately takes hold of the steering wheel, first capacitor 101 comes under the influence of this action, and as a result, first frequency f1 changes. Voltage U continuously rises with a decrease in distance from the hand to the steering wheel. As soon as voltage U exceeds first threshold S1, the detection device detects contact between the hand and the steering wheel.”; and para. [0101], “FIG. 16 is a schematic view illustrating an example configuration of steering wheel grip detection device 11 that includes two heaters (first heater 37 and second heater 41) as shown in FIG. 15 and that is actually built into steering wheel 3. With reference to FIG. 16, the two (a plurality of) heaters (first and second heaters 37 and 41) are disposed symmetrical to each other with respect to center line 60 of steering wheel 3 in a neutral position. In other words, in FIG. 16 first and second heaters 37 and 41 are disposed at places that are bilaterally symmetric with respect to center line 60. This configuration enables the two heaters to warm the right and left hands of a driver more reliably. Vehicle-side control circuit 35 can determine whether the driver is holding steering wheel 3 with both hands or only one hand with high precision because steering wheel grip detection device 11 includes capacitive element 25 and thus reduces the influence of thermostat 19. As a result, vehicle-side control circuit 35 can warn the driver about a grip on steering wheel 3 while reducing the possibility of giving a false alarm.”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Okazaki et al. into the system of Hyuga et al. for the purpose of determining total control of steering by monitoring both of driver’s hands, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga et al. in view of Miura (US 2017/0297543 A1).
Hyuga et al. teaches the elements of claims 1-2 above, but does not expressly teach, where Miura teaches the safety apparatus further comprises a rope with a length equivalent to the threshold, the rope being configured to: connect clothes of the driver and the emergency stop switch; and turn on the emergency stop switch by a tensile force to be generated when the driver moves apart from the manual driving apparatus by a distance exceeding the threshold (Miura, at least para. [0043], “Description is given of an executing operation of emergency stop mechanism 4 in the above-described configuration. For example, if the driver is thrown from snowmobile 10, the cap is pulled by tether cord 25 connected to the driver, such that emergency stop switch 2 is turned on. When emergency stop switch 2 is turned on, driving mechanism 52 is driven forwardly under the control of control section 3, such that drum 51 rotates about rotary shaft 53 in the direction of the arrow X2 in FIG. 3A. As drum 51 rotates in the direction of the arrow X2, wire rope 42 is reeled onto drum 51. Thus, rotor 41 rotates about rotary shaft 43 in the direction of the arrow X1 in FIG. 2A, bringing brake lever 21 closer to left handle 17L. At this time, the rotation of driving track belt mechanism 13 is locked, such that the brakes are applied. Right after that, the ignition system causes the engine to stop operation under the control of control section 3. It is to be noted that in the case where snowmobile 10 includes a battery, for example, braking by the brake mechanism may be simultaneously effected as stopping the operation of the engine, and braking by the brake mechanism does not have to be effected before stopping the operation of the engine. In this manner, snowmobile 10 is prevented from moving forward even on, for example, a slope by stopping the engine as well as executing braking by the brake mechanism in an emergency situation. In other words, snowmobile 10 is safely stopped even when the driver is thrown.”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Miura into the system of Hyuga et al. for the purpose of providing a further safeguard against driver’s inadvertent distance separation from the vehicle controls, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
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 DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665