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 5/20/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the linear movement now claimed in new claim 15, see 112 rejection below, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15 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.
New claim 15 requires that the first path of the cam surface is “increasing linearly”. The limitation is indefinite. First, it is unclear how a path can “increase”. Second, it is unclear, if the cam rotates, can have a linear movement.
Therefore, a very broad interpretation will be given. Correction and/or explanation 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, 3, 7-13 and 16 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
1427
media_image1.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 cooperate 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.
Hess further 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.
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_image2.png
459
855
media_image2.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 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).
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.
As to claim 16, Hess discloses that an end of the 1st path (fig 8) corresponds to the drive force required to overcome the predetermined retaining force, wherein a peak of a load is required to reach the mechanical activation position (figs 9-11).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14 and 15 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) and further in view of DE 102006003023 (DE 023).
As to claims 5 and 6, Hess, as modified by Mensch, 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_image3.png
721
576
media_image3.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 modified by Mensch, 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.
As to claim 15, Hess discloses that the 1st path of the cam surface is increasing linearly (moving in a designed path, when rotating) so as to increase linearly the driving force required to move the activation member until the drive force exceeds the predetermined retaining force (figs 6 to fig 8).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112-2nd paragraph rejection, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the 1st and 2nd path as claimed.
Hess discloses the activation member will move from the rest position (fig 6) through the mechanical activation (figs 9-11). The driving element will engage the stop element in a first path (fig 6 to fig 8) until the driving element is blocked by the stop element. When a driving force exceeds the predetermined force, the driving element will engage the stop element along a 2nd path (figs 9-11) so as to move the stop element and allow mechanical operation.
Mensch is only used to demonstrate that it is well known in the art to provide the electrical operation by means of an activation member activating an electronic device for unlatching the door.
As to new claims 15 and 16, a new rejection has been made on the record. Also, a new drawing and 112 issue for claim 15 has been made on the record.
Therefore, the arguments are 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 file an appeal brief to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
Conclusion
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 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
July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights