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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner disagrees with the argument that Budzynski does not teach “the sensor only measures the deformation of the blade”. In the embodiment in fig 8 this is not the case, see para 73. Paragraph 69 which the applicant cites, is a feature of the embodiment in fig 7, which is not relied upon. Sato et al. US 20220154498 A1 has been introduced to teach the new amendments.
Drawings
The previous drawing objections have been overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The previous 112 rejections have been overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budzynski et al. US 20030029210 A1 (hereinafter Budzynski) in view of Inoh US 20160114526 A1 (hereinafter Inoh) and Sato et al. US 20220154498 A1 (hereinafter Sato).
In regards to claim 1, Budzynski teaches a device comprising: a handle (10) of a vehicle door including a fixed part (a portion connecting to 4) and an activation part (portion in between) fixedly attached to the fixed part; a controller (18): and a first detection device (12) configured to activate at least one function of the handle upon detection of a force applied to the activation part (para 42) of the handle including: a blade (23) including a first bearing part (one of 24) and a second bearing part (other of 24), wherein the first bearing part and the second bearing part both bear against the activation part (see fig 8); and at least one sensor (13) arranged on the blade on a sensor location of the blade that is located between the first bearing part and the second bearing part (see fig 8), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure a deformation of the blade when the force is applied on the activation part and collect a deformation signal to be transmitted to the controller (para 32 and para 41), wherein the controller is configured to receive the deformation signal transmitted by the at least one sensor of each of the first devices and to activate the at least one function of the handle when the deformation signal corresponds to predetermined criteria (para 47 and paras 59-60), wherein the first bearing part and the second bearing part are secured to the activation part by a first securing portion (one of the portions of the handle surrounding 24) and a second securing portion (other of the portions of the handle surrounding 24), respectively, the first and second securing portions being formed with the activation part (see fig 8), wherein the sensor location is formed in a recess between the first securing portion and the second securing portion (see fig 8), the sensor location and/or the sensor being not overmolded so that the sensor measures only the deformation of the blade (see figs 6 and para 73), wherein the first detection device is arranged at a first location of the activation part 9 left wrt fig 6)
However, Budzynski does not teach the securing portions are over molded securing portions and wherein the first bearing part comprises a first hole and the second bearing part comprises a second hole.
Inoh teaches attaching a molded part (20) to a metal part (70) with a hole therethrough (70a) with an overmolded securing portion (50, see figs 3 and 6). Inoh teaches that this reduces manufacturing time and costs (para 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Budzynki’s securing portions be over molded securing portions and the bearing part comprising holes in order to reduce manufacturing time and costs (Inoh para 9).
Additionally Budzynski does not teach a second detection device and wherein the first detection device is arranged at a first location of the activation part and the second detection device is arranged at a second location of the activation part, the first and second locations being spaced apart, wherein the activation part is fixedly secured to the fixed part at a first mounting area and at a second mounting area, wherein the first and second locations of the activation part are at the first and second mounting areas, respectively, and wherein the activation part is a gripping part extending between the first and second detection devices.
Sato teaches a first (130-1) and a second detection device (130-2) and wherein the first detection device is arranged at a first location of the activation part and the second detection device is arranged at a second location of the activation part (see fig 11), the first and second locations being spaced apart, wherein the activation part is fixedly secured to the fixed part at a first mounting area (112C) and at a second mounting area (113C), wherein the first and second locations of the activation part are at the first and second mounting areas, respectively, and wherein the activation part is a gripping part extending between the first and second detection devices (see fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Budzynski to include a second detection device and wherein the first detection device is arranged at a first location of the activation part and the second detection device is arranged at a second location of the activation part, the first and second locations being spaced apart, wherein the activation part is fixedly secured to the fixed part at a first mounting area and at a second mounting area, wherein the first and second locations of the activation part are at the first and second mounting areas, respectively, and wherein the activation part is a gripping part extending between the first and second detection devices in order to allow the position in which pressure is being applied to be determined (Sato para 102).
In regards to claim 4, Budzynski in view of Inoh and Sato teaches the device according to Claim 1, wherein the blade of each of the first and second detection devices is made of metal material (Budzynski: para 68).
In regards to claim 5, Budzynski in view of Inoh and Sato teaches the device according to Claim 1.
However, Budzynski does not teach wherein in each of the first and second detection devices, the at least one sensor is adhered to the blade.
Sato teaches the sensor is adhered to a blade (para 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Adhered
Budzynski’s sensor to the at least one blade in order to provide for a well known and conventional way of attaching a sensor to a blade.
In regards to claim 6, Budzynski in view of Inoh and Sato teaches the device according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a strain gage sensor (Budzynski: para 73).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budzynski in view of Inoh and Sato as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of NPL “Strain Gauges”.
In regards to claim 7, Budzynski in view of Inoh and Sato teaches the device according to Claim 6, wherein the at least one sensor is a strain gage (Budzynski: para 73).
However, Budzynski does not specify the type of strain gauge and therefore does not teach the sensor is a full- bridge strain gauge.
NPL “Strain Gauges” teaches a full- bridge strain gauge (see page 7 of the article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Budzynski with a Full-bridge strain gauge as they offer greater sensitivity and Linearity, or proportionality, of these bridge circuits is best when the amount of resistance change due to applied force is very small compared to the nominal resistance of the gauge(s) (“Strain Gauges” page 7 of the article).
In regards to claim 8, Budzynski in view of Inoh and Sato teaches the device according to Claim 6, wherein the at least one sensor is a strain gage(Budzynski: para 73).
However, Budzynski does not specify the type of strain gauge and therefore does not teach the sensor is a half- bridge strain gauge.
NPL “Strain Gauges” teaches a half- bridge strain gauge (see page 5 of the article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Budzynski with a Half-bridge strain gauge as they reduce temperature induced errors (page 5 of the article).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230079515 A1 – teaches a similar device.
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675