DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gadola (US 2018/0163852).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. A steering wheel (500), wherein a paddle (10) and an indicator (250) are disposed on the steering wheel (figs. 1), and the indicator (250) comprises: a paddle indicator (250), wherein the paddle indicator (250) is disposed on the paddle (10), and the paddle indicator (250) is configured to prompt a current state of a vehicle in cooperation with the paddle (i.e., feedback device 250 provides tactile feedback to user depending upon user actuations), wherein: the steering wheel comprises a wheel hub and a wheel rim (fig. 1a); the wheel rim is located on an outer circumference of the wheel hub (fig. 1a); and the paddle (10) is mounted on the wheel hub (fig. 1b) and is configured to switch a level of an intelligent driving function, a type of the intelligent driving function, and/or a status of the intelligent driving function (the prior art structure meets the claimed intended use of an output signal of a switch), and wherein: the level of the intelligent driving function includes at least a level-1 intelligent driving function and a level-2 intelligent driving function (intended use); the paddle (10) is configured to enable the level-1 intelligent driving function (intended use) when the paddle is flicked once (the prior art is capable of the claimed intended use by at least figure 5, which shows separate single-tap functionality of the paddle); and the paddle (10) is configured to enable the level-2 intelligent driving function (intended use) when the paddle is continuously flicked a plurality of times (the prior art is capable of the claimed intended use by at least figure 5, which shows separate double-tap functionality of the paddle).
2. The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the paddle indicator (250) is configured to indicate (e.g., via tactile feedback, as explained above) the level information, the type information, and/or the status information of the corresponding intelligent driving function (intended use) in cooperation with the paddle.
6. (Currently Amended) The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the steering wheel further comprises a spoke (fig. 1a), the spoke is connected between the wheel hub and the wheel rim, and the wheel rim is located on an outer circumference of the wheel hub (fig. 1a); and the paddle is located on an inner side of the wheel rim, above a plane on which an axis of the spoke is located, or above a plane on which an axis of the wheel hub is located (fig. 1a).
7. The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the paddle indicator (250) is disposed on a side surface (fig. 1b) that is of the paddle (10) and that faces a driver (i.e., the structure of the prior art meets the claimed limitation insomuch as the location of the driver is dynamic), and/or is disposed in a circumferential direction of the paddle.
The limitations of claims 10-11 and 15-16 are similar in scope to those explained above, and thereafter are considered to flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadola (US 2018/0163852), in view of Walter et al. (US 2012/0133501).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Gadola discloses the paddle is configured to enable a user-defined driving function (intended use) or the level-2 intelligent driving function (intended use) is enabled when the paddle is touched and held (fig. 5), wherein the touch and hold is to keep the paddle in a flicked state for 0.5s to 10s (i.e., touch and hold); and/or regarding Claims 5 and 14, Gadola discloses the claimed limitations inosmuch the claimed elements are intended use of the output signal of a switching element.
However, Gadola does not disclose a plurality of display states, as disclosed, and therefore cannot be said to read on the remaining limitations of claims 3-5 and 12-14.
Walter teaches a paddle (1r) with a paddle indicator (7 and/or 9) which has a plurality of display states (paras. 7, 14, 30); and the paddle indicator isa color light variable indicator (paras. 12-13, 30), a frequency variable indicator, a brightness variable indicator, or a progress bar indicator; wherein different display states (e.g., para. 30) respectively correspond to different intelligent driving functions (intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the display and corresponding functionality as taught by Walter in combination with the paddle(s) of Gadola, for the expected benefit of increasing and/or adding redundancy to the feedback for the user, a known advantage in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadola (US 2018/0163852), in view of Lahiff (US 5,666,102).
Gadola is silent regarding the limitations of claim 8.
Lahiff teaches a wheel rim indicator (62), the wheel rim indicator is disposed on the wheel rim and is located on a side surface that is of the wheel rim and that faces a driver (fig. 3-4), and the wheel rim indicator is configured to prompt the current state of the vehicle; the wheel rim indicator has a plurality of display states (fig. 3-4), and the wheel rim indicator is capable of being turned on or off synchronously with the paddle indicator (i.e., the combination is capable of the claimed limitation insomuch as the indicators will turn off synchronously when the vehicle battery is disconnected); when the wheel rim indicator is turned on synchronously with the paddle indicator, a display state of the wheel rim indicator is the same as that of the paddle indicator (conditional limitation); and the wheel rim indicator is a color light variable indicator, a frequency variable indicator, a brightness variable indicator, or a progress bar indicator (figs. 3-4), at least one wheel rim indicator is disposed, and each wheel rim indicator extends in a circumferential direction of the wheel rim (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the wheel rim indicator system of Lahiff in combination with the structure of Gadola, for the expected advantage of providing more information to a user to enable more informed driving decisions. The remaining limitations of the claim flow naturally from the explanations of the combination above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadola (US 2018/0163852), in view of Pomytkin et al. (US 2021/0252979).
Gadola is silent regarding the limitations of claim 9.
Pomytkin teaches a spoke indicator (display screen may be provided in a steering wheel spoke, para. 31), the spoke indicator is disposed on the spoke and is located on a side surface that is of the spoke and that faces a driver, and the spoke indicator is configured to prompt the current state of the vehicle in cooperation with the paddle; the spoke indicator has a plurality of display states (para. 31), and the spoke indicator is capable of being turned on or off synchronously with the paddle indicator (i.e., as explained above); when the spoke indicator is turned on synchronously with the paddle indicator, a display state of the spoke indicator is the same as that of the paddle indicator (conditional limitation); and the spoke indicator is a color light variable indicator (para. 34), a frequency variable indicator, a brightness variable indicator, or a progress bar indicator, and at least one spoke indicator is disposed (para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the spoke indicator system of Pomytkin in combination with the structure of Gadola, for the expected advantage of providing more information to a user to enable more informed driving decisions. The remaining limitations of the claim flow naturally from the explanations of the combination above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The clarity rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
The totality of Applicant’s arguments have also been considered with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner’s position is that the claimed functionality of the paddle amounts to the functionality expected of a generalized computer (e.g., receiving a signal and conditionally outputting a signal) which does not require disclosure of an algorithm.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are either moot or not persuasive, as addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the physical structure of Walter (e.g., Remarks, page 12) 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the relationship of Gadola’s various shift modes with claimed “the level-1 intelligent driving function” or “the level-2 intelligent driving function” (Remarks, pages 13-14) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s claimed, e.g., “intelligent driving function” equates to merely a naming convention for output signals from a switching device insomuch as the claim lacks any (claimed) downstream input structure (e.g., a specialized computer with associated algorithm) that accepts the switch’s respective output signal. Therefore, the argued limitations are examined as intended use, where the disclosure(s) of the prior art meet(s) the claimed limitations insomuch as the prior art has a switching element that sends different output signals depending upon activation-type.
Plainly, Applicant has claimed a steering wheel with a paddle, where the paddle outputs different signals depending upon how it is acted upon; but Applicant has not claimed a vehicle computer that uses an algorithm to enact different intelligent driving modes based upon the received output signals from a paddle. A general computer is expected to be capable of acting as a switch by receiving an input signal and providing a conditional output signal; and a general computer does not invoke the requirement of an algorithm under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), whereas a specialized computer requires the disclosure of an algorithm. The Examiner’s position is that the functionality of a switch is not changed by the naming convention of the output signal, but rather is examined as an intended use of the switch.
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 T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights