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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “an acquisition unit that acquires at least one piece of information” and “a determination unit that determines a function having a high operation possibility” in claim 1.
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.
Applicant has provided sufficient structure for the claimed acquisition unit as “the CPU 31 as an acquisition unit acquires at least one piece of information” in paragraph 38 of the specification and has provided sufficient structure for the claimed determination unit as “the CPU 31 as a determination unit determines a function with a high operation possibility on the basis of the acquired information” in paragraph 45 of the specification.
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
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0140994; hereinafter Tanaka) and further in view of Tetsuka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0183481; hereinafter Tetsuka).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a steering device for steering a vehicle, the steering device comprising: a rim unit that is gripped at a time of steering; a wheel unit that is located on an inner side of the rim unit (Tanaka: Par. 33; i.e., input apparatuses 30 are attached to left and right spokes 31B sandwiched between steering wheel 31 and pad 31A accommodating the center air bag or the like; as displayed in Figure 4, the steering device comprises a rim unit and a wheel unit);
a plurality of operation switches that are disposed on the wheel unit, each of the operation switches including a light emitting portion capable of being individually switched on and off, each of the operation switches being used for operating a function installed in the vehicle (Tanaka: Par. 27; i.e., first display section 12 in display plate 11 shows characters, a symbol, a picture or the like representing a function for operation; Par. 44; i.e., Control section 24 controls the light emission of first light-emitting elements 23A and second light-emitting elements 23B in accordance with the touch operation of electrostatic touch panel 14; as displayed in Figure 4, the operation switches disposed on the wheel include light emitting portions);
a design panel (Tanaka: Par. 26; i.e., display plate 11 includes light-blocking section 11A and cover section 11B);
an acquisition unit that acquires at least one piece of information among user's operation information, environment information, driving information, and vehicle position information (Tanaka: Par. 34; i.e., the driver extends his or her thumb to touch display plate 11 while holding steering wheel 31.. this change in the capacitance is detected by control section 24 to detect the position in display plate 11 touched by the finger; the control section detects a user touch operation);
and a control unit that controls the light emitting portion (Tanaka: Par. 51; i.e., only the touched-and-operated position of first display section 12 is illuminated),
wherein the operation switches are individually operable via the design panel (Tanaka: Par. 27; i.e., first display section 12 in display plate 11 shows characters, a symbol, a picture or the like representing a function for operation),
the design panel includes a design surface that transmits light of the light emitting portion in an on-state and makes visibility of the light emitting portion in an off-state lower than visibility in the on-state (Tanaka: Par. 26; i.e., display plate 11 includes light-blocking section 11A and cover section 11B… Cover section 11B is made of insulating resin such as acryl or Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) that has a dark color such as brown or black and that is translucent; the cover section is dark making visibility of the emitted light lower in an off-state).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach a determination unit that determines a function having a high operation possibility, on a basis of information acquired by the acquisition unit; and the control unit switches on the light emitting portion associated with the function having the high operation possibility determined by the determination unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetsuka teaches a determination unit that determines a function having a high operation possibility, on a basis of information acquired by the acquisition unit (Tetsuka: Par. 24; i.e., the rider's intention on riding the straddle type vehicle can be implicitly understood based on the predetermined inputs to the main controller resulting from the rider's operation of certain (manual) control components; the intention of the rider corresponds to a high operation possibility); and the control unit switches on the light emitting portion associated with the function having the high operation possibility determined by the determination unit (Tetsuka: Par. 24; i.e., the back light source is switched back to its normal output state if the main controller receives one of the predetermined inputs pertaining to … a rider's intended operations of the vehicle when the back light source is in the low output state).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steering device of Tanaka to have further incorporated a determination unit that determines a function having a high operation possibility, on a basis of information acquired by the acquisition unit; and the control unit switches on the light emitting portion associated with the function having the high operation possibility determined by the determination unit, as taught by Tetsuka. Doing so would allow the light to be switched on based on the driver’s detected intention and without requiring operation of a control component (Tetsuka: Par. 26; i.e., output of the back light source can be resumed promptly without requiring the rider's operation of a control component).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka in view of Tetsuka teaches the steering device according to claim 1. Tetsuka further teaches wherein, when an operation switch having the light emitting portion in the on-state is operated, and a predetermined time elapses after the operation is finished, the control unit switches off the light emitting portion in the on-state (Tetsuka: Par. 106; i.e., the dimming determination portion 110 determines whether or not time counted by an unillustrated timer has reached a fixed time; Par. 98; i.e., If the result is positive in the determination processes in steps S1 to S3 and S6 to S8 … in the next step S9, the dimming determination portion 110 outputs a dimming signal for reducing the light amount of back light outputted from the back light source 116).
Tanaka further teaches when there is another light emitting portion that is associated with the function corresponding to the light emitting portion and is in the on-state, the control unit switches off the other light emitting portion (Tanaka: Par. 37; i.e., control section 24 controls the light emission by second light-emitting elements 23B so that only second display section 13A at a position currently touched by the finger is illuminated and the rest of second display sections 13 are not illuminated).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka in view of Tetsuka teaches the steering device according to claim 1. Tanaka further teaches wherein the design surface is decorated, and is disposed on one of a front surface or a back surface of the design panel (Tanaka: Par. 26; i.e., display plate 11 includes light-blocking section 11A and cover section 11B… Cover section 11B is made of insulating resin such as acryl or Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) that has a dark color such as brown or black and that is translucent; the cover section has a decorative black or brown color and is disposed on the front surface of the display plate).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanka in view of Tetsuka and further in view of Kang et al. (CN Publication No. 219707088; hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka in view of Tetsuka teaches the steering device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the determination unit determines a level of operation possibility, on a basis of the information, and the control unit varies a switch-on mode of the light emitting portion corresponding to the determined function having the high operation possibility, depending on the determined level of operation possibility.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches wherein the determination unit determines a level of operation possibility, on a basis of the information (Kang: Par. 24; i.e., a first touch device 6 is installed on the first grip section 2 to monitor the driver's left hand gripping the steering wheel and the position of the driver's left hand; Par. 37; i.e., when the driver intends to turn left/make a U-turn, the driver's left hand grips the first grip segment 2 (reaching the set trigger force threshold of the first touch device 6); the system determines the level of possibility of the left hand turn based on the amount of force of the grip), and the control unit varies a switch-on mode of the light emitting portion corresponding to the determined function having the high operation possibility, depending on the determined level of operation possibility (Kang: Par. 31; i.e., the body control module 8 is used to: control the first side turn signal 9 to turn on or off according to the pressure signal detected by the first pressure detection unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steering device of Tanaka and Tetsuka to have further incorporated wherein the determination unit determines a level of operation possibility, on a basis of the information, and the control unit varies a switch-on mode of the light emitting portion corresponding to the determined function having the high operation possibility, depending on the determined level of operation possibility, as taught by Kang. Doing so would allow the driver to keep their hands on the steering wheel in the safest position resulting in improved safety (Kang: Par. 41; i.e., from the moment the driver intends to turn/U-turn until the turn/U-turn is completed, both hands remain on the steering wheel in the safest nine o'clock/three o'clock grip position, improving driving safety, enhancing the ability to respond to emergencies, and reducing driving risks).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka in view of Tetsuka teaches the steering device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the operation information includes a strength of a grip on the rim unit, when the strength of the grip on the rim unit exceeds a predetermined strength, the determination unit determines a predetermined specific function to be the function having the high operation possibility, and outputs a signal corresponding to the specific function, and, in response to the output of the signal, the control unit makes the specific function operable, and switches on the light emitting portion associated with the specific function.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches wherein the operation information includes a strength of a grip on the rim unit (Kang: Par. 24; i.e., a first touch device 6 is installed on the first grip section 2 to monitor the driver's left hand gripping the steering wheel and the position of the driver's left hand), when the strength of the grip on the rim unit exceeds a predetermined strength, the determination unit determines a predetermined specific function to be the function having the high operation possibility (Kang: Par. 37; i.e., when the driver intends to turn left/make a U-turn, the driver's left hand grips the first grip segment 2 (reaching the set trigger force threshold of the first touch device 6); the system determines the level of possibility of the left hand turn based on the amount of force of the grip), and outputs a signal corresponding to the specific function, and, in response to the output of the signal, the control unit makes the specific function operable, and switches on the light emitting portion associated with the specific function (Kang: Par. 31; i.e., the body control module 8 is used to: control the first side turn signal 9 to turn on or off according to the pressure signal detected by the first pressure detection unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steering device of Tanaka and Tetsuka to have further incorporated wherein the operation information includes a strength of a grip on the rim unit, when the strength of the grip on the rim unit exceeds a predetermined strength, the determination unit determines a predetermined specific function to be the function having the high operation possibility, and outputs a signal corresponding to the specific function, and, in response to the output of the signal, the control unit makes the specific function operable, and switches on the light emitting portion associated with the specific function, as taught by Kang. Doing so would allow the driver to keep their hands on the steering wheel in the safest position resulting in improved safety (Kang: Par. 41; i.e., from the moment the driver intends to turn/U-turn until the turn/U-turn is completed, both hands remain on the steering wheel in the safest nine o'clock/three o'clock grip position, improving driving safety, enhancing the ability to respond to emergencies, and reducing driving risks).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of controlling a light emitting portion of a steering wheel includes Tsuchida et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4438425), Watanabe et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0159396), Saito (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0011595), and Engel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10304333).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665