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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second vertical rim portion extends in a substantially vertical direction from the spoke portion in a neutral state…an angle of the second vertical rim portion with respect to a horizontal line is equal to or larger than a predetermined angle”. The underlined limitation is confusing because it implies that the second vertical rim portion is inclined relative to the horizontal line at different angle than 90 degrees, but the first part of the limitation requires a substantially vertical direction (90-degree angle to the horizontal line) of the second vertical rim portion. Clarification or correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. KR 10226413 B1 (hereinafter “Yoo”, cited in an IDS) in view of Watanabe et al. JP 2023-063050 A (hereinafter “Watanabe”, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo, with reference to FIG. 6, teaches a steering apparatus comprising:
a steering wheel (110 and 120) including a hub portion connected to a steering shaft, a rim portion (shown in FIG. 6) extending around the hub portion over an entire circumference in a circumferential direction centered on the hub portion so as to be gripped by an occupant, and a spoke portion (shown in FIG. 6) extending in a left-right direction from the hub portion to connect the hub portion and the rim portion; and wherein
the rim portion includes an upper horizontal rim portion (top portion of 120) and a lower horizontal rim portion (lower portion of 110) extending substantially horizontally above and below the hub portion, respectively, and a pair of left and right vertical rim portions (shown in FIG. 6, also FIG. 5 ) connecting left and right end portions in the left-right direction of the upper horizontal rim portion and left and right end portions in the left-right direction of the lower horizontal rim portion,
a distance from the hub portion to the upper horizontal rim portion is longer than a distance from the hub portion to the lower horizontal rim portion (refer to FIG. 6),
the pair of left and right vertical rim portions each includes a first vertical rim portion located below the spoke portion and a second vertical rim portion located above the spoke portion, and
the second vertical rim portion extends in a substantially vertical direction from the spoke portion to the upper horizontal rim portion in a neutral state where the steering wheel is not steered, and an angle of the second vertical rim portion with respect to a horizontal line is equal to or larger than a predetermined angle (the vertical rim portions of 120 appears to be substantially vertical, 90 degrees inclination with a horizontal line).
Yoo teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching a sensor part of a non-contact type provided on the hub portion or the spoke portion so as to detect a grip operation of the rim portion by the occupant.
Watanabe teaches a steering wheel comprising teaching a well-known sensor part (24) of a non-contact type provided on the hub portion or the spoke portion so as to detect a grip operation of the rim portion by the occupant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoo’s device with the sensor part of Watanabe in order to reliably detect whether a driver’s hands are gripping or in close proximity to steering wheel to ensure driver intervention.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches wherein the sensor part includes a sensor of an electrostatic capacitance type having an electrode arranged on the spoke portion so as to detect a contact or a proximity of the occupant with respect to the rim portion.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe, with reference to FIGS. 1-5, further teaches wherein the electrode includes a central electrode portion (vertical portion of 24) extending in the substantially vertical direction, a lower electrode portion (lower portion of 24) extending in an inclined manner downward and inward in the left-right direction from a lower end portion of the central electrode portion, and an upper electrode portion (upper portion of 24) extending in an inclined manner upward and inward in the left-right direction from an upper end portion of the central electrode portion.
Regarding claim 4, Yoo fails to teach a switch part operated by the occupant, wherein the switch part is arranged in an area surrounded by the upper electrode portion, the central electrode portion, and the lower electrode portion.
Watanabe teaches a switch part (20) for controlling different vehicle functions on the located on the spoke and the switch part is arranged in an area surrounded by the upper electrode portion, the central electrode portion, and the lower electrode portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoo’s device with the switch part of Watanabe in order to give a user flexibility to control various vehicle functions on the steering wheel as commonly known in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Watanabe, and further in view of Horie et al. US 2024/0328832 A1 (hereinafter “Horie”).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo in view of Watanabe fail to explicitly teach wherein the electrode includes an insulating portion configured to insulate the central electrode portion from the lower electrode portion, and to insulate the central electrode portion from the upper electrode portion.
Horie teaches a similar sensor part (110) comprising and electrode (114) an insulating part (112, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify/substitute Yoo in view of Watanabe’s sensor part with a sensor part having an insulating layer of Horie in order to achieve the same predictable result of reliably detecting gripping of a driver, with the added benefit of a flexible attachment to the steering wheel.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Odate et al. WO 2023/135805 A1 (hereinafter “Odate”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo, with reference to FIG. 6, teaches a steering apparatus comprising:
a steering wheel (110 and 120) including a hub portion connected to a steering shaft, a rim portion (shown in FIG. 6) extending around the hub portion over an entire circumference in a circumferential direction centered on the hub portion so as to be gripped by an occupant, and a spoke portion (shown in FIG. 6) extending in a left-right direction from the hub portion to connect the hub portion and the rim portion; and wherein
the rim portion includes an upper horizontal rim portion (top portion of 120) and a lower horizontal rim portion (lower portion of 110) extending substantially horizontally above and below the hub portion, respectively, and a pair of left and right vertical rim portions (shown in FIG. 6, also FIG. 5 ) connecting left and right end portions in the left-right direction of the upper horizontal rim portion and left and right end portions in the left-right direction of the lower horizontal rim portion,
a distance from the hub portion to the upper horizontal rim portion is longer than a distance from the hub portion to the lower horizontal rim portion (refer to FIG. 6),
the pair of left and right vertical rim portions each includes a first vertical rim portion located below the spoke portion and a second vertical rim portion located above the spoke portion, and
the second vertical rim portion extends in a substantially vertical direction from the spoke portion to the upper horizontal rim portion in a neutral state where the steering wheel is not steered, and an angle of the second vertical rim portion with respect to a horizontal line is equal to or larger than a predetermined angle (the vertical rim portions of 120 appears to be substantially vertical, 90 degrees inclination with a horizontal line).
Yoo teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching a sensor part of a non-contact type provided on the hub portion or the spoke portion so as to detect a grip operation of the rim portion by the occupant.
Odate teaches a steering wheel comprising teaching a well-known sensor part (electrode devices) of a non-contact type provided on the hub portion or the spoke portion so as to detect a grip operation of the rim portion by the occupant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoo’s device with the sensor part of Odate in order to reliably detect whether a driver’s hands are gripping or in close proximity to steering wheel to ensure driver intervention thereby improving traffic safety.
Regarding claim 7, Yoo fails to teach another sensor part configured to detect a load in a direction of gravity acting on the steering shaft; and an electronic control unit having a microprocessor and a memory connected to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform determining whether the rim portion is gripped based on signals from the sensor part and the other sensor part.
Odate also teaches teach another sensor part (steering shaft 3 is also provided with a torque sensor 31 that detects steering torque acting on the steering shaft 3 and outputs a signal corresponding to the detected value to the steering control device 4) configured to detect a load in a direction of gravity acting on the steering shaft; and an electronic control unit (4) having a microprocessor and a memory connected to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform determining whether the rim portion is gripped based on signals from the sensor part and the other sensor part (the steering control device 4 detects when the steering torque detected by the torque sensor 31 is greater than or equal to a predetermined torque threshold set near 0, or when the capacitance of either the electrode device 55L or 55R is greater than or equal to a predetermined capacitance threshold value, it is determined that the driver is gripping the steering wheel 2, the steering torque is less than the torque threshold value, and the electrode device 55L, If the width of change in both capacitances of 55R is less than the capacitance threshold, it is determined that the driver is not gripping the steering wheel 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoo’s device with another sensor part of Odate in order to accurately determine whether or not the driver is gripping the steering wheel even in a situation where it is difficult for the torque sensor to detect or capacitance sensor to detect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Watanabe or Odate, in view of Nakamura US 2024/0317296 A1 (hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 8, Yoo in view of Watanabe (or Odate) teach the claimed invention except wherein the vehicle is configured to switch a drive mode between a self-drive mode, in which a driving operation by a driver is unnecessary, and a manual drive mode, in which the driving operation by the driver is required, the vehicle further comprises: a notification part notifying the driver of a grip command of the steering wheel; and an electronic control unit having a microprocessor and a memory connected to the microprocessor, and the microprocessor is configured to perform determining whether the rim portion is gripped based on signals from the sensor part when a grip request for the steering wheel is received during travel in the self-drive mode, and controlling the notification part to notify the driver of the grip command when it is determined that the rim portion is not gripped.
Nakamura teaches a vehicle is configured to switch a drive mode between a self-drive mode (“autonomous”), in which a driving operation by a driver is unnecessary, and a manual drive mode, in which the driving operation by the driver is required, the vehicle further comprises: a notification part (8) notifying the driver of a grip command of the steering wheel; and an electronic control unit (15) having a microprocessor and a memory connected to the microprocessor, and the microprocessor is configured to perform determining whether the rim portion is gripped based on signals from the sensor part when a grip request for the steering wheel is received during travel in the self-drive mode, and controlling the notification part to notify the driver of the grip command when it is determined that the rim portion is not gripped (refer to [0057]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoo in view of Watanabe’s device with a notification part, electronic control unit and microprocessor as taught by Nakamura in order to allow a user to safely operate transition from an autonomous drive mode to a manual drive mode by safely alerting the driver that is determined not to be gripping the steering wheel to grip the steering wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
