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 8 July 2026 have been fully considered, but moot in view of a new rejection.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 15-17, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eo (US 2022.0314794) in view of Pathak (US 2010.0268426)
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).
Eo is not explicit as to, but Pathak disclose:
querying a cockpit function set stored in a memory of the vehicle, wherein the cockpit function set comprises the plurality of cockpit functions arranged in a sequence; controlling, in response to a second user operation on the second button, the first cockpit function by querying a control item binding table stored in the memory of the vehicle to identify a control item of the first cockpit function that corresponds to an operation manner of the second user operation; wherein the third user operation is an operation performed on the first button, and wherein the vehicle displays, on a display of the vehicle, cockpit function information corresponding to the second cockpit function in response to the switching; and controlling the second cockpit function in response to a fourth user operation on the second button (see Fig. 14; [0043-0050, 0075]; memory 328 to store assignable tasks/shortcuts in library 330; first button 16 used to query cockpit functions 20 arranged in sequence; controlling second button 14 with user operations that correspond to a second user operation that were bound by the first button using the table stored in memory; where repeating the binding step is akin to third operation (e.g., choosing new functional layout) in order to switch cockpit function).
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 Pathak to Eo, to predictably allow user flexibility to quickly choose which function is bound to a second function and the desired layout, from queried functions stored in memory ([0043]).
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.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eo further disclose:
the cockpit function information displayed on the display in response to the switching comprises a switching menu, wherein the switching menu comprises a plurality of switch controls corresponding to cockpit functions in the cockpit function set arranged in the sequence, and wherein the vehicle deepens a color of the switch control corresponding to the second cockpit function relative to switch controls corresponding to other cockpit functions in the switching menu (see Fig. 2-3; where corresponding control has ‘deepened color’ (e.g., N1 vs N2); where Pathak at Fig. 14 discloses a switching menu with a plurality of switch controls)
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, when considering Eo as modified by Pathak, to further consider deepening the color of the switch control corresponding to the second cockpit function, which predictably allows a user to visibly and clearly identify which function will be selected, further increasing accuracy.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo and Pathak in view of Pomytkin (US 2021.0252979).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Eo and Pathak are 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak 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 Pathak 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 Pathak 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak are 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak are 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak are 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak in view of Chiang (US 2008.0174555).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Eo and Pathak are 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak 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 and Pathak are 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 and Pathak, 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
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