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 .
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed on 2/9/26.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 11, 13-15 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 10,435,924 to Salter et al (Salter) in view of US Pat No 8,746,104 to Sobecki et al (Sobecki) and CN 112814504 to Li Jian.
Regarding claim 1, Salter discloses a method for performing an alternating functional movement for producing a secondary function with a hand grip (16) of an electric door handle of a vehicle door.
The method comprises the steps positioning, in a load free manner, the handle grip in at least one of a plurality of load free positions, that are located between a 1st end position, that is mechanically defined by a 1st stop (fig 4a) and a 2nd end position that is mechanically defined by a 2nd stop (fig. 4b or 4c).
The method further comprises the step of receiving a function request that comprises a signal that is received by a control device (from a sensor 32a-32e) for activating the secondary function (moving the handle actuator to actuate in response to the ice determination).
The method further comprises the step of performing the alternating functional movement, wherein the hand grip (16) is moved back and forth multiple times between at least two different functional positions (stowed and deployed, hammering action of the handle actuator).
The alternating functional movement is configured to generate a vibration of the handle grip when moved between the two different functional positions.
The method further comprises the step of performing the alternating functional movement a 2nd time, wherein at least one movement parameter is changed for the 2nd performing of the alternating functional movement (at 100% for a limited time period and then depending on the thickness of the ice after).
First, Salter fails to disclose that the method requires performing a test movement with the hand grip to determine if the secondary function was successful subsequent to the performing the alternating functional movement.
Li Jian teaches that it is well known in the art to have a method that will perform a test movement of the hand grip to determine if a secondary function was successful after performing an alternating functional movement (par 34-48, Li Jian teaches that in order to break accumulated ice, the handle is moved quickly at a 1st preset motor power and a preset time period, S102. Then, in S201, the method requires determining if the ice was successfully broken. In step S301, the system will obtain the operating current of the door handle motor at that moment. The operating current of the door handle motor is used to determine its operating status, which may include whether it is in ice-breaking mode. In S202, if it was determined that the ice was not successfully broken, then the method will continue with the ice breaking).
Li Jian also teaches that the method will apply a force to the hand grip to move it to a load-free gripping position as part of a test movement of the hand grip (at step S202, if ice breaking fails, control the door handle motor to rotate again to move the door handle mechanism to the closed position, i.e. applying a force by the motor to the hand grip to move it to a load-free gripping position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method described by Salter with a test, as taught by Li Jian, in order to determine that the ice broke or not.
Second, Salter fails to disclose that the method comprises the step of determining the current position of the handle grip via at least one sensor means.
Sobecki teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle with a handle position sensor (320) for detecting the position of the handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle described by Salter with a handle sensor, as taught by Sobecki, in order to determine where is the handle positioned and perform a desired function with that information.
Furthermore, in combination, using the teaching of determining the position of the handle, teach by Sobecki, into the device described by Salter, will perform the alternating functional movement “centered” on determined current load-free position, such that the hand grip can move back and forth multiple times.
As to claim 2, Salter discloses that the secondary function is at least one of de-icing of the hand grip or a neighboring component.
As to claim 7, Salter discloses that the hand grip is moved into a start position (stowed) before the alternating functional movement is performed.
As to claim 13, Salter discloses that the functional movement is simultaneously and/or subsequently also performed on other electric door handles of the vehicle (if multiple users operate respective door handles).
As to claim 14, Salter discloses that the functional movements for at least two electric door handles is configured to differ from one another (depending on the thickness of the ice, it might require different hammering action).
As to claim 15, Salter fails to disclose that the handle comprises at least one sensor means in communication with the control device for detecting the position of the hand grip.
Sobecki teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle with a handle position sensor (320) for detecting the position of the handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle described by Salter with a handle sensor, as taught by Sobecki, in order to determine where is the handle positioned and perform a desired function with that information.
Furthermore, in combination, using the teaching of determining the position of the handle, teach by Sobecki, into the device described by Salter, will perform the alternating functional movement “centered” on determined current load-free position, such that the hand grip can move back and forth multiple times.
As to claim 18, Salter discloses that the plurality of load-free positions includes a load-free travel position, a load-free gripping position, a load-free protective position, a load-free indicative position, a load-free unlocking position, or any combination thereof.
As to claim 19, Li Jian teaches that the method performs the alternating functional movement a 2nd time.
As to claim 20, Li Jian teaches that at least one movement parameter is changed for the second performing of the alternating functional movement (time, power, etc.).
As to claim 21, Salter discloses that the alternating functional movement has a functional frequency that corresponds at least in part to a natural frequency of a neighboring component and/or layer of ice (the hammering action of the handle will disturb any neighboring component, so as to tend to vibrate at a particular frequency or a set of frequencies, i.e. natural frequency).
As to claim 22, Salter discloses that the second performing of the alternating functional movement occurs after a wait time (after it is determined that there is ice).
As to claim 23, Salter discloses that the at least one movement parameter that is changed is one of the following parameters: at least one functional position, the movement frequency, the movement amplitude, or the movement direction.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 10,435,924 to Salter et al (Salter) in view of US Pat No 8,746,104 to Sobecki et al (Sobecki), CN 112814504 to Li Jian and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20230258019 to Smart.
As to claim 3, Salter discloses that the alternating functional movement moves the hand grip back and forth between the at least two different functional positions.
However, Salter fails to positively disclose that it is at a defined functional frequency and/or a defined functional amplitude.
Smart teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an alternating movement is made for performing a secondary function (de-icing).
The functional movement is defined at a defined functional frequency and/or a defined functional amplitude (par 81, high force during initial phase and reduced force and steady speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alternating functional movement described by Salter, as modified by Sobeck and Li Jian, at a defined at a defined functional frequency and/or a defined functional amplitude, as taught by Smart, in order to provide a steady movement.
As to claim 4, Smart teaches that the functional frequency and/or the functional amplitude changes over the course of the functional movement (when moved between initial phase to secondary phase).
As to claim 5, Salter discloses that the functional movement is divided into a first partial functional movement, in which the hand grip is moved back and forth multiple times between two different functional positions (initial phase).
Salter discloses a “second partial functional movement”, in which the hand grip is moved back and forth multiple times between two different functional positions which differ from at least one functional position of the first partial functional movement (This is accomplished since in the controller will determine the thickness of the ice. At the initial phase, the thickness is at a certain dimension, so the hand grip is moved back and forth multiple times between two different functional positions. While the ice is breaking, the thickness of the ice change, so then the hammering action is decreased and the handle is moving back and forward at a greater spacing until the ice is broken)
Smart teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an alternating movement is made for performing a secondary function (de-icing).
So, in combination, Salter, as modified by Sobecki, Li Jian and Smart, teaches the limitation claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Salter, as modified by Sobecki and Li Jian, fails to disclose that the method comprises applying a force to the hand grip to move the hand grip to a load-free gripping position as part of a test movement of the hand grip.
As established above, Li Jian teaches that the method will apply a force to the hand grip to move it to a load-free gripping position as part of a test movement of the hand grip. At step S202, if ice breaking fails, a force created by the door handle motor rotating the hand grip to load-free position, and if it is required to continue with the alternating functional movement, the motor then rotate the hand grip from the load-free position back and forward.
Therefore, the combination teaches the invention as claimed and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
March 3, 2026