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 applicant’s amendment filed on 11/14/25.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 requires an input. However, the claim fails to provide the structure that makes the input in order to perform the function claimed.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required.
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, 11-14, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202008003845 (DE 845) in view of FR 847011 to Beaumont and further in view of US Pat No 5,457,971 to Yamada.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, DE 845 discloses a vehicle that comprises a door operation assembly. The assembly comprises a door locking mechanism (9) disposed in a vehicle door for at least one of locking and unlocking of the vehicle door; a latching mechanism (1-4) disposed in the vehicle door for at least one of latching and unlatching the vehicle door;
an internal door handle assembly (5) provided on an interior surface of the vehicle door, wherein the internal door handle assembly is operably coupled to the door locking mechanism to at least one of lock and unlock the vehicle door and operably coupled to the latching mechanism to delatch the vehicle door; and an outside door handle assembly provided on an exterior surface of the vehicle door.
The outside door handle assembly comprises an outside door handle (6) operably coupled to the latching mechanism to at least delatch the vehicle door; and an arrester component mounted to the outside door handle assembly.
The arrester component comprises a barrier (11a) mounted to the housing and movable therein, wherein the barrier is to cooperate with the outside door handle; and an activator/deactivator (10) is to use an input corresponding to a state of locking or unlocking of the vehicle door to cause movement of the barrier to regulate movement of the outside door handle of the door operation assembly.
First, DE 845 fails to disclose that the outside door handle is movable between a flush position and a deployed position. DE 845 discloses a door handle (6) that moves between a rest position and a deployed position. However, the door handle is not flush to the door.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
1103
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Beaumont teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an outside door handle (2) to be flush to the door.
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 outside door handle described by DE 845 being flush to the door, as taught by Beaumont, in order to provide a smooth surface with the door and to protect the handle when is not in use.
Second, DE 845 discloses that when the vehicle door is in a locked state and if the outside door handle is in the rest position, the activator/deactivator causes the barrier (11a) to engage with the outside door handle to arrest the movement of the outside door handle from the flush position to the deployed position.
However, DE 845 fails to disclose that when the vehicle door is in the locked state and if the outside door handle is in the deployed position, the outside door handle is manually moved against the barrier, allowing the movement of the outside door handle from the deployed position to the flush position. DE 845 will require movement of the barrier and then move the outside door handle toward the rest position.
PNG
media_image3.png
399
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Beaumont teaches that the barrier is spring biased by means of a spring (7). Beaumont illustrates that if the outside door handle is in the deployed position, the barrier is moved back to the locked position by means of the spring. So, if the user manually moves the handle to the flush position, the outside handle contour will engage the barrier and moved against the spring, until the handle is finally in the flush position and the barrier is returned back to the locked 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 handle described by DE 845 to be able to move back to the original position if the door is locked and the handle is in the deployed position, as taught by Beaumont, in order to automatically allow the return of the handle instead of the user to operate other elements in order to allow the return of the handle.
Finally, DE 845 fails to disclose that the arrester component comprises a housing that have the barrier and the activator/deactivator disposed therein.
PNG
media_image4.png
567
1198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yamada teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an arrester component that comprises a housing (29) that have a barrier (25) and an activator/deactivator (37) disposed therein for interacting with a flush handle (18).
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 barrier and the activator/deactivator described by DE 845 disposed within a housing, as taught by Yamada, in order to secure the element sin one place and provide protection.
As to claim 2, DE 845 discloses that when the vehicle door is in the unlocked state, the activator/deactivator is to cause the barrier to disengage from the outside door handle to allow the movement of the outside door handle.
As to claims 11 and 19, Yamada teaches that the barrier (25) and the activator/deactivator (37) are in a cam-follower relationship.
As to claims 12 and 20, Yamada teaches that an outer wall of the activator/deactivator has a tapered profile (38) extending along a length of the activator/deactivator.
As to claims 13 and 21, DE 845 discloses that the door operation assembly comprises a control unit (13) coupled to the arrester component. The control unit is to receive the input (through 14) corresponding to state of locking or unlocking of the vehicle; and in response to the input, actuate the barrier to regulate the outside door handle of the door operation assembly.
As to claim 14, DE 845, as modified by Beaumont and Yamada, will teach the arrester component in combination with the door operation assembly as claimed and interpreted.
As to claim 16, DE 845 discloses that the barrier is engageable with an actuator (6a) of the door operation assembly to regulate the movement of the outside door handle to the flush position (in combination with Beaumont) and to the deployed position.
As to claim 17, DE 845, as modified by Beaumont and Yamada, teaches that the barrier (Yamada 25) comprises a contoured mating portion (Yamada 27) comprising a slanted contour engageable with the actuator (DE 845 6a) to regulate the movement of the outside door handle, the barrier being mounted to the housing to be movable between a first position and a second position, the first position being a position where the barrier is closest to a central longitudinal axis of the activator/deactivator and the second position being a position where the barrier is farthest from the central longitudinal axis of the activator/deactivator (Yamada).
As to claim 18, Yamada teaches that the barrier (25) is mounted to the housing by a first spring (42), wherein the first spring is a torsion spring to bias the barrier towards the second position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15, as interpreted above, 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.
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 5 and 7-10 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claims 3 and 6 above.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claims 1 and 6, the current amendment overcomes the previous issues.
With respect to the first part of the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 14, the current interpretation is maintained and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the second part of the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 14, it is still unclear what structure provides the input in order to perform the function claimed. Since no argument was presented, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the applicant argues that Beaumont fails to disclose that when the vehicle door is in the locked state and if the outside door handle is in the deployed position, the activator/deactivator causes the barrier to allow the movement of the outside door handle from the deployed position to the flush position. The applicant also argues that a translation of the Beaumont reference was not supplied.
First, a machine translation of the Beaumont reference was submitted in the last office action. Nevertheless, a human translation is submitted with this action.
Second, Beaumont is used to teach that it is well known in the art to provide an outside door handle to be flush to the door.
Also, DE 845, the base reference, fails to disclose that when the vehicle door is in the locked state and if the outside door handle is in the deployed position, the outside door handle is manually moved against the barrier, allowing the movement of the outside door handle from the deployed position to the flush position. DE 845 will require movement of the barrier and then move the outside door handle toward the rest position.
As clearly shown in the drawings, Beaumont illustrates that if the outside door handle is in the deployed position, the barrier is moved back to the locked position by means of the spring. So, if the user manually moves the handle to the flush position, the outside handle contour will engage the barrier and move the barrier against the spring, until the handle is finally in the flush position and the barrier is returned back to the locked position.
PNG
media_image3.png
399
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown above, anyone who has ordinary skill in the art will understand that in the position shown above (deployed position), the barrier is spring bias to the locked position, so the barrier is in the moving path of the handle.
If someone pushes the handle toward the flush position, the handle contour will contact the barrier. The contact will make the barrier to move against the spring force until the handle is placed in the flush position. At that time, the barrier will then move back by the spring force. So, Beaumont clearly teaches the limitation as claimed.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Since no argument is persuasive and the examiner will not change this position, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can either 1) provide allowable subject matter; or 2) file an appeal brief as his next response to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
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 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
February 9, 2026