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 RCE filed on 12/23/26.
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 1-14 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 now requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
101
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the remarks and the intention are two different things. The claim requires that in the rest position, the activation member is released from any actuation. That is impossible since the activation member is connected to the grip member, so if the grip member is activated, then the activation member is actuated.
It appears that the intention is to claim that in the rest position, the activation member is released from or is not in contact with the retaining member.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the language will be interpreted as in the rest position, the activation member is released from or not in contact with the retaining member. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE 102020203891 to Hess et al (Hess).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
1427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Hess discloses an electronic handle for a vehicle door. The electronic handle comprises a grip member (1) configured to cooperate with an activation member (3) to activate a latch of the vehicle door and unlatch the door.
The grip member and the activation member being rotatably mounted respectively about a grip axis and an activation axis.
An electronic device (not shown) configured to electronically activate the latch of the vehicle door (par 20).
A bracket (2) is configured to receive the grip member and the activation member.
A retainer (4) is mounted on the bracket and configured to rotate around a retaining axis and having a predetermined retaining force.
Wherein, the grip member is configured to rotate between a rest position in which the activation member is not engaged with the retainer (fig 6), and a mechanical activation position in which the grip member cooperates with the activation member for activating the latch of the vehicle door in case of default of the electronic device.
The grip axis, the activation axis, and the retaining axis are parallel to each other.
The activation member comprises a driving element (6) and the retainer comprises a stop element (4a), the driving element cooperating with the stop element such that when the grip member is pulled from the rest position to the mechanical activation position, the activation member is actuated according to a driving force, the driving element contacts the stop element and is retained by the stop element until the driving force exceeds the predetermined retaining force.
As to claim 4, Hess discloses that the activation member moves from the rest position through the mechanical activation position, the driving element (27) is configured to engage the stop element (19) according to a first path until the driving element is blocked by the stop element, wherein, when the driving force exceeds the predetermined retaining force, the driving element is configured to engage the stop element according to a second path, and wherein a magnitude of the driving force necessary to move the activation member is less than the predetermined retaining force.
As to claim 7, Hess discloses that the predetermined retaining force is provided by a return retaining device (spring) associated with the retainer (4).
As to claim 8, Hess discloses that the stop element (4a) is moveable such that the driving element (6) moves the stop element when moving from the rest position to the mechanical activation position.
As to claim 9, Hess discloses that the stop element (4a) is free to rotate around the rotating axis when the driving element moves from the rest position to the mechanical activation position.
As to claim 10, Hess discloses that the grip member comprises a column (9).
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) 2, 3, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102020203891 to Hess et al (Hess) in view of DE 102014117005 to Mensch et al (Mensch).
As to claim 2, Hess fails to disclose that the activation member further has an electrical activation position between the rest position and the mechanical activation position, in which the activation member activates the electronic device for unlatching the door.
Hess does not clearly disclose what structure creates the electronical operation. Hess just discloses that the driving element (6) strikes the strop element (4a) of the retainer (4), an electrical signal for opening the lock is generated due to the force applied (par 20).
PNG
media_image3.png
459
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mensch teaches that it is well known in the art to provide the electrical operation by means of an activation member (18) activating an electronic device (28) for unlatching 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 electrical operation described by Hess, as one that is made by the activation member, as taught by Mensch, in order to provide the corresponding electrical structure to perform the electronic operation.
As to claim 3, Hess, as modified by Mensch, teaches that the stop element (4a) is configured to stop the activation member at the electrical activation position.
As to claim 11, Mensch teaches that the activation member (18) is configured to electronically actuate the latch.
As to claim 12, Mensch teaches that the electronic handle further comprises a switch (28), and wherein the activation member is configured to actuate the switch.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102020203891 to Hess et al (Hess) in view of DE 102006003023 (DE 023).
As to claims 5 and 6, Hess fails to disclose that the stop element comprises a roller and the driving element comprises a surface configured to be in contact with the roller when the activation member moves from the rest position to the mechanical activation position.
PNG
media_image4.png
721
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
DE 023 teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a movement connection between a 1st and a 2nd member (4, 5), with a roller (6) on one of the members to slide along a surface of the other element, providing a frictionless movement connection.
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 movement connection described by Hess as one having a roller/surface connection, as taught by DE 023, in order to provide a frictionless movement connection.
As to claim 14, Hess discloses that when the driving element (6) is moving in contact with the surface of the stop element (4), in order to pass by, the handle needs an increased driving force (when moving from figs 7 and 8, into figs 9-11, handle needs a little more force to drive pass the engagement). DE 023 teaches a roller connection.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 1, the rejection is maintained, as explained above.
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 9, the amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Christensen and Nam, in view of the interpretation given to the limitation in question, the rejection is provisionally withdrawn, since Christensen and Nam, both shows that in the rest position, the activation member is in contact with the retainer.
With respect to Hess, the rejection is maintained. The applicant argues that Hess does not disclose the claimed rest position.
As clearly shown in fig 6, Hess shows a rest position in which the activation member is not engaged with the retainer. Therefore, in the rest position, Hess disclosed the invention as claimed and interpreted.
Therefore, since the arguments are not persuasive and the examiner will maintain the position shown above, 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
February 18, 2026