DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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) 1-8, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guerin et al. (US 10,975,598).
Regarding claim 1, Guerin et al. discloses a vehicle rear door handle, comprising:
a handle frame (26) to be attached on an internal side of a vehicle rear door panel, the handle frame having an elongated bowl,
a handle lever (32) which is pivotably received in the elongated bowl and supported by the handle frame, the handle lever being movable in rotation around a handle lever axis (B) with respect to the handle frame between a rest position and an opening position, the handle lever axis extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the elongated bowl.
a kinematic lever (34) coupled to the handle lever and rotatively mobile with respect to the handle frame around a kinematic lever axis (C and also D) between a rest position and an active position,
wherein the kinematic lever has an attachment section (Fig. 6) for a Bowden cable (46) and is configured to interact via the Bowden cable with a latch mechanism (12) to unlatch the door when the kinematic lever reaches the active position, the vehicle rear door handle being configured so that when the handle lever reaches its opening position, the kinematic lever reaches the active position (Fig.5), wherein the kinematic lever axis (C) of the kinematic lever is disposed between a free end of the handle frame and the elongated bowl and the attachment section (Fig.5) for the Bowden cable is protruding such that the Bowden cable fixed beside the elongated bowl.
Regarding claim 2, Guerin et al. discloses he vehicle rear door handle according to claim 1, wherein the handle lever (32) at one end comprises a control cam (30) and the kinematic lever (34) comprises a radial arm (34, Fig.6) cooperating (in assembly) with the control cam of the handle lever.
Regarding claim 3, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle according to claim1, wherein the kinematic lever (34) is disposed on a rear face of the handle frame (Fig.5 B-side or rear view) and the elongated bowl presents at the end facing the kinematic lever a through- opening (Fig. 5 32 shown through frame horizontal 26) to cooperate with the control cam (30).
Regarding claim 4, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle according to claim2, wherein the control cam (30) has a general shape of a part of a torus.
Note: where applicant claim language is subjective or questionably vague, the recitation is taken broadly rather than indefinite as any shape.
Regarding claim 5, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle claim1, wherein the kinematic lever (34) axis is orthogonal (C, Fig.6) to the handle lever axis (B Fig.5).
Regarding claim 6, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle according to claim1, wherein the kinematic lever (34) presents an abutment (68) and the vehicle rear door handle comprises at least one reversible inertial security system (28, c.6, l.6-7) mounted on the handle frame (26), said reversible inertial security system comprising a rocker arm (66) which carries an inertial mass (64), the rocker arm being pivotally mounted between a rest position allowing the kinematic lever to rotate between the rest position and the active position and a blocking position(c.6, l.7-10) it reaches in case of a collision where the rocker arm cooperates with said abutment in order to block rotation of the kinematic lever in the rest position thus preventing an unlatch of the door (blocking position, C.6, l.7-10).
Regarding claim 7, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle according to claim 6, wherein the reversible inertial security system (28) comprises a safety spring (70) dimensioned to put the rocker arm in the rest position in case of no collision and to be overdriven by the force exerted by the inertial mass 964) in case of a collision in order to put the rocker arm in the blocking position.
Regarding claim 8, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle claim6, wherein the reversible inertial security system (28) is mounted between the free end of the handle frame 926) and the kinematic lever(34,Fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle claim6, wherein the abutment (68) is formed by a sector shaped blocking tooth (Fig, 10 Finger).
Regarding claim 11, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle claim6, wherein the rocker arm (Fig.10) extends radially with respect to the kinematic lever axis (34, Fig.10).
Regarding claim 12, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door comprising a vehicle rear door handle (32)according to anyone of the preceding claim1.
Regarding claim 13, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door according to claim 12, comprising a vehicle rear door panel (22) having a V-shaped rear edge (Fig.1, Note where a shape is concerned absent an explicit definition and absent a criticality of function, the recitation is taken broadly), the vehicle rear door handle being attached to an internal side (Fig.1 showing only handle 32, mechanism is inside) of the vehicle rear door panel at the rear edge of the vehicle rear door panel.
Regarding claim 14, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door according to claim 13, wherein the vehicle rear door panel comprises on its internal side (Fig.1, A-side, B-side inside) a recess (Fig.1 opening about 24)adjacent to the vehicle rear door handle, the recess defining an access to the handle lever of the vehicle rear door handle when the vehicle rear door is closed.
Regarding claim 15, Guerin et al. discloses a comprising a vehicle rear door handle (32,Fig.1) according to claim1.
Regarding claim 16, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door according to claim 1 where the kinematic lever (axis D) is orthogonal to the handle lever axis (Fig. 5).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guerin et al. (US 10,975,598).
Regarding claim 9, Guerin et al. discloses the vehicle rear door handle claim1, wherein the radial arm (34, Fig.6) of the kinematic lever and the abutment of the kinematic lever (34).
Guerin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the radial arm of the kinematic lever and the abutment of the kinematic lever are angularly offset of less than 150°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify wherein the radial arm of the kinematic lever and the abutment of the kinematic lever are angularly offset of less than 150°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 18 September 2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s argument concerning an axis, any element is capable of having any number of theoretical axes defined. In the Guerin (US 10,975,598) multiple axes are defined I the operation of a blocking element.
The front end 62 of the rocker 58 comprises a blocking finger 66 which projects longitudinally towards the front and which delimits a blocking face 67 extending radially, and in one form the blocking finger 66 extends perpendicularly to the axis D of rotation of the rocker 58.
As the recitation merely requires the definable axis, Guerin et al. discloses the recitation as claimed. Applicant has failed to provide positive recitation which would preclude the reference of Guerin et al from disclosing the invention. The argument is unpersuasive.
As for the axis of the handle extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the elongated bowl, the handle of Guerin et al. shows the same orientation of elongated handle into elongated bowel as there appears to be no structural difference claimed which would preclude the Guerin et al. from disclosing the invention, the argument is considered unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights