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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 4/9/2026 have been entered.
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) 1-4, 9-10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 20170072984 A1; “Gong”) in view of Liburdi (DE 10121566 A1; “Liburdi”).
Regarding claim 1:
A steering wheel (9) for a motor vehicle (see title), the steering wheel having an axis of rotation perpendicular to a plane of rotation of the steering wheel (FIG. 1, the axis of rotation extending along column 4 which is perpendicular to the rim of the steering wheel i.e. plane of rotation of the steering wheel) and comprising a control box (2), in turn comprising:
a printed circuit board (23);
a casing (FIG. 3 depicts housing/casing that e.g. accommodates the PCB 23) defining a cavity housing the printed circuit board (FIG. 3, supra);
a cover (21) attached to the casing so as to cover the cavity with an inner face (bottom/inner surface of cover 21 as seen in FIG. 3) facing the cavity according to a direction entering the plane of rotation of the steering wheel and an outer face (upper/outer surface of the cover 21 as seen in FIG. 3) opposite the inner face so as to face, in use, a user of the steering wheel (as depicted in FIG. 2); and
at least one control (24), which is manipulatable by the user coupled to the casing in a movable manner with respect to the cover (¶ 31, “control key 24” the term “key” indicating e.g. a push-button type controller that is manipulated by the user by pushing it inward with respect to the cover 21), and arranged through a related seat formed on the cover along said direction (FIG. 2-3 depicts the controller 24 extending through and protruding from cover 21 via seat/recess formed therein; see MPEP § 2125).
However, Gong does not expressly disclose that the cover comprises a transparent plate or glass plate.
Liburdi teaches a cover (6, 8) comprises a transparent plate or glass plate (9) as a means to provide backlit (via LEDs 60) illuminated graphic symbols or indicators which represent functions which can be controlled by the controllers (5, 14, 15, 12, 24, 26, 34, 22, knob 62; pg. 2, “Similarly, the left printed circuit board is protected from the environment by a left circuit board cover or controller cover. The covers can contain various graphic symbols which represent the functions which can be controlled by the control devices. For example, who uses the arrows to indicate that the flashing signal has been activated.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that its cover comprises a transparent plate or glass plate, as taught by Liburdi, as a means to provide backlit illuminated graphic symbols or indicators which represent functions which can be controlled by the controls. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is a rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that both Gong and Liburdi are drawn to analogous/similar structures i.e. steering wheel controls, and would therefore recognize that modifying Gong in view of the known technique taught in Liburdi as described supra would, with reasonable predictability, result in Gong’s cover comprising a transparent plate or glass plate, as taught by Liburdi, as a means to provide backlit illuminated graphic symbols or indicators which represent functions which can be controlled by the controls.
Gong as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 2:
The steering wheel according to claim 1, comprising one or more indicators (9 in Liburdi (pg. 2 in Liburdi, “illuminated graphs 9 to indicate. . . .”), which are fixed on said plate and/or on a transparent or glass manipulatable portion of the control and configured to indicate the control (pg. 2 in Liburdi, “Similarly, the left printed circuit board is protected from the environment by a left circuit board cover or controller cover. The covers can contain various graphic symbols which represent the functions which can be controlled by the control devices. For example, who uses the arrows to indicate that the flashing signal has been activated.”).
Regarding claim 3:
The steering wheel according to claim 2, comprising: a backlight device (60 in Liburdi) coupled to the printed circuit board within the cavity (depicted in FIG. 3 in Liburdi) and configured to illuminate the one or more indicators (pg. 2 in Liburdi); and a control unit connected to the backlight device via the printed circuit board (pg. 3 in Liburdi, “The circuit boards 50, 52 are connected to a microprocessor (not shown)”) and configured to control the backlight device to illuminate the one or more indicators (the PCBs 50, 52 connect the backlight devices 60 to the microprocessor for control).
Regarding claim 4:
The steering wheel according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is coupled to the control and is configured to control the backlight device based on how the control is manipulated (pg. 2 in Liburdi, “The right printed circuit board 50 is protected from the environment by a right circuit board cover or control device cover 6 .Similarly, the left printed circuit board 52 is protected from the environment by a left circuit board cover or controller cover 8 .The covers 6 , 8 can contain various graphic symbols which represent the functions which can be controlled by the control devices 5 , 7 . For example, who uses the arrows to indicate that the flashing signal has been activated. The graphical symbols can be backlit illuminated by placing diodes 60 (shown in FIG. 3) or other lighting devices on the circuit board below or near the graphical symbols to increase the visibility of the graphical symbols in poor condition To improve light”).
Regarding claim 9:
The steering wheel according to claim 1, further comprising: a rim (at 9 in FIG. 2) extending in a ring shape about the axis of rotation (FIG.2 depicts the steering wheel rim/crown as circular/ring shaped; MPEP § 2125) and defining a radially outermost portion of the steering wheel relative to the axis of rotation (depicted in FIG. 2); a central hub (6) about the axis of rotation; and a plurality of radial spokes connecting the central hub to the rim (FIG. 2 depicts spokes extending from hub to the rim in the 12 o’clock, 3 o’clock, 6 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions/directions), wherein the casing is attached to one of the spokes (on the spokes at 3 and 9 o’clock positions in FIG. 2), so as to be arranged at an empty sector between said one of the spokes, another of the spokes, the rim, and the central hub (e.g. FIG. 2 depicts controllers 24 extending/protruding downward into an spokeless space).
Regarding claim 10:
The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the control comprises a knob (62 in Liburdi) rotatable about a knob axis parallel to said direction (pg. 2 in Liburdi, “The right control device also has a rotatable dial (shown in FIG. 3) to control the control 18 of the windshield wipers. The dial is connected to the front 70of the printed circuit board 50 and rotates about an axis perpendicular to the front 70 of the printed circuit board” and thereby parallel to the direction.”).
Regarding claim 14:
The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the seat is obtained on said plate (FIG. 2-3 depicts the controller 24 extending through and protruding from cover/plate 21 via seat/recess formed therein; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 15:
The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the cover is said plate (FIG. 3 depicts cover/plate 21 as flat and relatively thin piece; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 16:
A steering wheel (9) for a motor vehicle (see title), the steering wheel comprising: an axis of rotation perpendicular to a plane of rotation of the steering wheel (FIG. 1, the axis of rotation extending along column 4 which is perpendicular to the rim of the steering wheel i.e. plane of rotation of the steering wheel); and a control island (portions on which controllers 24 are mounted, see in FIG. 2), comprising: a control circuit (23 a casing (FIG. 3 depicts housing/casing that e.g. accommodates the PCB 23) defining a cavity housing at least a portion of the control circuit (FIG. 3, supra);
a cover (21) attached to the casing so as to cover the cavity, wherein the cover comprises a translucent plate (at 9 in Liburdi), the cover comprising: an inner face facing the cavity (bottom/inner surface of cover 21 as seen in FIG. 3); and an outer face opposite the inner face so as to face, in use, a user of the steering wheel (upper/outer surface of the cover 21 as seen in FIG. 3); and a controller (24), which is manipulatable by the user, coupled to the casing in a movable manner with respect to the cover and extending through a seat formed in the cover (¶ 31, “control key 24” the term “key” indicating e.g. a push-button type controller that is manipulated by the user by pushing it inward with respect to the cover 21), and arranged through a related seat formed on the cover along said direction (FIG. 2-3 depicts the controller 24 extending through and protruding from cover 21 via seat/recess formed therein; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 17:
The steering wheel of claim 16, wherein the translucent plate is comprised of glass (portions 9 in Liburdi are “backlit illuminated” indicating that they are transparent or translucent to a degree so as to allow the light to pass therethrough i.e. “glass” in accordance to the instant specification in in ¶ 35 therein).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Liburdi, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson (WO 2023117055 A1; “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 5-7, Gong as modified above teaches the steering wheel according to claim 2, see above, but does not expressly disclose that the one or more indicators comprise a film deposited on said plate or on the transparent or glass manipulatable portion by physical vapor deposition, wherein the film has a plurality of micro-holes arranged to form a graphic pattern on the film, and wherein each of the micro-holes has a width dimension or diameter of less than one-tenth of a millimeter.
Anderson teaches one or more indicators (26; FIG. 2) comprise a film (28) deposited on a plate or on the transparent or glass (34) manipulatable portion by physical vapor deposition (pg. 12, “PVD”), wherein the film has a plurality of micro-holes (44) arranged to form a graphic pattern on the film (pg. 11, “hole array 44 in the decorative metallic layer 28”), and wherein each of the micro-holes has a width dimension or diameter of less than one-tenth of a millimeter (pg. 5, “holes having a size equal to or smaller than 0.5mm” which is a range that includes values less than 0.1 mm) as a means to aesthetically enhance the indicators (pg. 4).
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, Gong such that the one or more indicators comprise a film deposited on said plate or on the transparent or glass manipulatable portion by physical vapor deposition, wherein the film has a plurality of micro-holes arranged to form a graphic pattern on the film, and wherein each of the micro-holes has a width dimension or diameter of less than one-tenth of a millimeter, as taught by Anderson, as a means to aesthetically enhance the indicators.
Regarding claim 8, although Gong as modified above (Anderson) characterizes the plurality of micro-holes as an “array” (pg. 11) i.e. that each has a spacing from another adjacent micro holes of the micro holes and that they should be “barely noticeable from usual viewing distances,” it does not expressly disclose that the spacing is less than one-tenth a millimeter.
Gong as modified above does not expressly disclose that each of the micro-holes has a spacing from another adjacent micro-holes of the micro-holes less than one-tenth of a millimeter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spacing is less than one-tenth a millimeter 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 particular spacing claimed would cause the claimed invention to perform differently than that of the prior art device. Additionally, paragraph [0102] in the instant specification mentions that the spacing is a mere preference i.e. not required. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Liburdi, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ebrom et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2016/0181028 A1; “Ebrom”).
Regarding claim 11, Gong as modified above teaches the steering wheel according to claim 10, see above, but does not expressly disclose that the knob carries a lens in a fixed position, and wherein the lens has a first surface facing toward a first indicator fixed on said plate for at least one position of the knob, the lens being configured to project an image of the first indicator onto a second surface of the lens opposite said first surface.
Ebrom teaches that a knob (20) carries a lens (36) in a fixed position (depicted in FIG. 1; ¶ 11), and wherein the lens has a first surface (inner face facing element 24 in FIG. 1) facing toward a first indicator (22, 24) fixed on said plate (depicted in FIG. 1) for at least one position of the knob (¶ 11), the lens being configured to project an image of the first indicator onto a second surface (outer surface/face facing the operator; FIG. 1) of the lens opposite said first surface (outer surface is opposite inner surface) to provide a light transmissive indicia on the knob that, for example is able to indicate a change in intensity/change in position of the knob by controlling the intensity of the light shone through the lens (¶ 3).
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, Ebrom such that the knob carries a lens in a fixed position, and wherein the lens has a first surface facing toward a first indicator fixed on said plate for at least one position of the knob, the lens being configured to project an image of the first indicator onto a second surface of the lens opposite said first surface.
Regarding claims 12-13, Gong does not expressly disclose that the knob comprises aluminium metal.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that providing a knob comprising aluminum metal as a part of its construction is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong such that its knob comprises aluminum metal as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong such that its knob comprises aluminum metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gong does not disclose the claimed control box because it does not rotate with the rim 1 and therefore is not part of the steering wheel. Remarks at 16. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the control box being rotatably fixed to the rim ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, whether the operating part 2 is rotatably fixed to the rim 1 does not necessarily deem it as being separate part from the “steering wheel” and the claims do not specifically limit its steering wheel components to only those that rotate with the rim portion of the steering wheel. Moreover, Gong explicitly deems the operating part 2 as a part of the steering wheel in paragraph [0026] which recites “The steering wheel includes a steering wheel rim 1, an operating part 2, a central shaft 3, and an actuating rod 4” (emphasis). As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed as persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liburdi teaches its control boxes being positioned behind the steering wheel and thus teach away from claim 1. Remarks at 18. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is a rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that both Gong and Liburdi are drawn to analogous/similar structures i.e. steering wheel controls, and would therefore recognize that modifying Gong in view of the known technique taught in Liburdi as described supra would, with reasonable predictability, result in Gong’s cover comprising a transparent plate or glass plate, as taught by Liburdi, as a means to provide backlit illuminated graphic symbols or indicators which represent functions which can be controlled by the controls. As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed as persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liburdi does not teach a transparent plate or a glass plate but that the symbols 99 therein could be physical voids, openings or holes that allow light to pass through. Remarks at 19. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liburdi discloses on page 2 “The covers 6, 8 can contain various graphic symbols. . . . The graphical symbols can be backlit illuminated by placing diodes 60 (shown in FIG. 3) or other lighting devices on the circuit board below or near the graphical symbols to increase the visibility of the graphical symbols in poor condition To improve light. The planar surfaces of the backlight reduce the reflection because they are not reflected in the windshield” (emphasis). First, the covers 6, 8 contain “graphical” symbols which reasonably indicates that the form of the image being disposed on the covers 6, 8 – rather than mere openings or holes. Second, the term “back” in the phrase “backlit illuminated” indicates some surface or “back” that is lit i.e. “backlit” indicating a transparent or glass plate that is illuminated – a opening or hole cannot be “illuminated” per se as there would be nothing to brighten/illuminate (it merely allows light to shine therethrough). Third, the recitation that “planar surfaces” reduce reflection on the windshield indicates the presence of a transparent or glass plate on the covers 6, 8 – mere openings or holes would not serve to dim or redirect direct light that could shine directly onto the windshield to create the undesired reflection. Lastly, MPEP § 2125 states “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)”). MPEP § 2131.02(III) states that a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). Here, FIG. in Liburdi reasonably depicts/discloses the graphical symbols being formed on the cover itself as a transparent/glass plate portion thereof i.e. one having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the graphical symbols being formed on the cover itself as a transparent/glass plate portion thereof. As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed as persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights