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 .
Response to Arguments
Amendments and arguments filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as the Eo reference is being interpreted in a new light based on the amended claims. Applicant argues the first button of Eo (e.g., 111) does not bind a function to a second button, but such binding is only done via the button editing screen, thus the newly amended claims are patentably distinct. The Office disagrees with applicant’s characterization. First, at least at [abstract, 0017], Eo is clear that there are at least two buttons on the steering wheel – using 111 and 112 as an exemplary minimum. Second, [0061] is clear that the mapping of buttons on the steering wheel can be done by a user input at, at least, 111, 112, or the user interface 120. As the disclosure of Eo follows, the custom menu has various selectable mappings (e.g., CUSTOM 1, CUSTOM 2, etc.) that must be chosen via user input. Thus, Eo continues to read on the claims, as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eo (US 2022.0314794).
Regarding claim 1, Eo disclose:
A method, comprising: receiving, from a first button on a steering wheel of a vehicle, a first user operation selecting a first cockpit function from a plurality of cockpit functions; binding, in response to the first user operation a second button on the steering wheel of the vehicle to the first cockpit function; controlling, the first cockpit function in response to a second user operation on the second button; receiving, from the first button on the steering wheel of the vehicle, a third user operation selecting a second cockpit function from the plurality of cockpit functions; (see Fig. 1-3, 6; [abstract, 0017, 0042-0043, 0049, 0052, 0061]; steering wheel 10 with at least two or more (e.g., first, second, etc.) buttons; second button 111 is bound with a first function (e.g., N) in response to a user input (e.g., that the mapping of buttons on the steering wheel can be done by a user input at, at least, 111, 112, or the user interface 120); where the user input can be from ‘a button’ (e.g., the first button 112) such that control of the function bound to 111 is executed when the user operates button 111)
switching, in response to the third user operation on the first button, a cockpit function bound to the second button from the first cockpit function to the second cockpit function; and controlling, the second cockpit function in response to a fourth user operation on the second button (see Fig. 1-3, 6; [0042-0043, 0049, 0052]; where a third user operation is selecting a second cockpit function (e.g., CUSTOM-2) such that a fourth user operation on 111 will execute he second cockpit function).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
displaying a first list on a display in response to the third user operation, and changing a function option in a selected state in the first list from a first function option to a second function option, wherein the first function option indicates the first cockpit function, and wherein the second function option indicates the second cockpit function; and displaying first information on the display in response to the fourth user operation, wherein the first information indicates content for controlling the second cockpit function (see Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
controlling, by the vehicle, the second cockpit function in response to the fourth user operation on the second button comprises controlling a first control item of the second cockpit function in response to the fourth user operation on the second button (see [0053]; various control items for vehicle control).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
the display is a dashboard display (see [0043]; cluster display)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
the vehicle comprises a first cockpit function set, wherein the first cockpit function set is used by the vehicle to select, when detecting an operation on the first button, a cockpit function from the first cockpit function set and bind the cockpit function to the second button, and the first cockpit function set comprises the first cockpit function and the second cockpit function (see Fig. 3; first cockpit set 310 with at least a first/second functions (e.g., CUSTOM-1 and CUSTOM-2 to be bound to 112).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
cockpit functions comprised in the first cockpit function set are arranged in a first sequence, and switching, by the vehicle in response to the third user operation on the first button, the cockpit function bound to the second button from the first cockpit function to the second cockpit function comprises: in response to the third user operation on the first button and switching the first sequence starting from the first cockpit function in the first cockpit function set, the cockpit function bound to the second button, and determining that the second button is bound to the second cockpit function (see Fig. 1-3, 6; [0042-0043, 0049, 0052, 0061]; in the situation that the user is selecting the second function to be bound to the second button that was previously bound to the first function).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, where Eo further disclose:
a display apparatus configured to display an interface, at least one memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, and at least one processor coupled to the display apparatus and the at least one memory and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (see [0043, 0045]; display device; memory 130, processor 150)
Regarding claims 16-17, claims 16-17 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo in view of Pomytkin (US 2021.0252979).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Eo is not explicit as to, but Pomytkin disclose:
controlling a second control item of the second cockpit function in response to a fifth user operation on the second button, wherein a second operation manner of the fifth user operation is different from a first operation manner of the fourth user operation (see [0014-0015]; where multiple input gestures on a specific steering wheel button are used to initiate a different functionality (e.g., tap vs. drag gesture)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Pomytkin to that of Eo to predictably provide intuitive and clear control over the vehicle functions through a single button ([0009])
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo in view of Pomytkin (US 2021.0252979) in further view of Chiang (US 2008.0174555).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. While Eo provides a customization of button functions. Eo and Pomytkin are not explicit as to, but Chiang disclose:
the first button is a single button, wherein an operation manner of the first button comprises single press and press and hold, wherein the second button is a scroll wheel, and operation manners of the second button comprise: roll up, roll down, push left, push right, and single press (see Fig. 1; [0003]; scroll wheel button 12 with roll up F; roll down B; push left Z; push right R; single press D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Chiang to that of Eo and Pomytkin to predictably a single button with multiple inputs ([0003])
Regarding claim 19, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo in view of Feit (US 2018.0196589).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein. While Eo discloses a function list 310, Eo is not explicit a to, but Feit disclose:
the first cockpit function set does not comprise a third cockpit function, and the method further comprises: detecting a sixth user operation, and adding the third cockpit function to the first cockpit function set (see Fig. 7a-c; [0093]; where list 116 is customizable (akin to list 310 of Eo); where a 6th operation adds third cockpit function 632).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Feit to that of Eo to predictably provide a customizable functional list in order to increase device versatility and user experience.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein. While Eo discloses a function list 310, Eo is not explicit a to, but Feit disclose:
detecting a seventh user operation, and deleting the first cockpit function from the first cockpit function set (see Fig. 8a-c; [0101]; removing cockpit function from set (akin to Eo list 310)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Feit to that of Eo to predictably provide a customizable functional list in order to increase device versatility and user experience
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. While Eo discloses a function list 310, Eo is not explicit a to, but Feit disclose:
detecting an eighth user operation, and adjusting the first sequence to a second sequence (see Fig. 7d-f).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Feit to that of Eo to predictably provide a customizable functional list in order to increase device versatility and user experience.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo in view of Chiang (US 2008.0174555).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Eo is not explicit as to, but Chiang disclose:
detecting a ninth user operation, and when the second button is bound to the second cockpit function, switching the first control item bound to a first operation manner of operating the second button to a third control item of the second cockpit function (see Fig. 1; [0003]; scroll wheel button 12 with multiple types of entry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Chiang to that of Eo to provide a single button with multiple types of entry such that the functionality of Eo could be mapped to a specific input type of the button in which it is bound, predictably increasing device versatility and user experience.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Chiang further disclose:
the second button is bound to the second cockpit function, and the method further comprises: controlling the third control item of the second cockpit function in response to a tenth user operation on the second button, wherein an operation manner of the tenth user operation is a first operation manner (see Fig. 1; [0003]; scroll wheel button 12 with multiple types of entry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Chiang to that of Eo to provide a single button with multiple types of entry such that the functionality of Eo could be mapped to a specific input type of the button in which it is bound, predictably increasing device versatility and user experience.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo in view of Drombrovskis (US 2021.0053515).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
the plurality of cockpit functions comprise an air conditioner function, and wherein the method further comprises: displaying, on a dashboard display of the vehicle, first cockpit function information corresponding to the first cockpit function in response to binding the second button to the first cockpit function on the dashboard display of the vehicle, second cockpit function information corresponding to the second cockpit function in response to switching the cockpit function bound to the second button from the first cockpit function to the second cockpit function (see Fig. 2-3; [0043, 0061, 0063]; display info mapping via display 300, where 300 can be shown on a cluster).
Eo is not explicit as to, but Dombrovskis disclose:
wherein the dashboard display is viewable through an upper hollow part of the steering wheel; and displaying (see Fig. 3; [0094]; vehicle cluster display viewable through upper hollow portion of steering while).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the known techniques of Dombrovskis to that of Eo, to predictably provide an ease of view for the driver to see the settings menu within the same field-of-view as the selectable buttons.
Conclusion
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 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 KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights