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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/02/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,368,011 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 door lever housing as recited in claim 10 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because the “,” in “pivotable, manner” on line 3 should be deleted. Appropriate 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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saarinen et al. [Saarinen hereinafter, US 7,589,291].
In regard to claim 1, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] a module comprising: a housing [32] having a switch region; a switch [35] connected releasably to the switch region of the housing [32]; and an actuating flap [310], which is pivotally connected to the housing [32] and configured so as to be pivoted by a movement of a door lever [31], wherein the door lever [31] is separate from the actuating flap [310], wherein the actuating flap [310] is configured to be moved between a first position and a second position in which the switch [35] is activated by the actuating flap [310].
In regard to claim 2, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] the module according to claim 1, wherein the switch [32] comprises an activating component [36] extending in a first direction, and wherein the actuating flap [310] is pivotable about a pivot axis, wherein the pivot axis extends substantially perpendicular to the first direction.
In regard to claim 3, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] the module according to claim 1, wherein the actuating flap [310] comprises a curved cover region, which is configured so as to at least partially cover an activating component [36] of the switch [35].
In regard to claims 4 and 5, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] the module according to claim 1, wherein the module comprises a first resetting element [col. 2, line 37 – col. 3, line 5], which biases the actuating flap [310] into the first position, wherein the first resetting element is configured so as to generate a haptic and/or audible signal when the actuating flap [310] is transferred into the second position of the actuating flap [310].
In regard to claims 6 and 13, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] the module according to claim 1, wherein the module comprises a second resetting element [36], which is configured so as to act against further movement of the door lever [31] after the actuating flap [310] has been transferred into the second position of the actuating flap [310], wherein the second resetting element [36] is a resetting spring.
In regard to claim 7, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] the module according to claim 1, wherein the actuating flap [310] comprises a protrusion [33], which projects over a surface of the actuating flap [310] facing away from the switch [35] and is configured to interact with the door lever [31] as the door lever [31] translates so as to transfer a substantially translational movement of the door lever [31] into a pivoting movement of the actuating flap [310].
In regard to claim 10, Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3]a door lever housing [col. 2, lines 56-61] having a door lever [31] stored therein in a pivotable manner; and a module according to a module according to claim 1, wherein the module is connected to the door lever housing such that the actuating flap [310] is arranged between the door lever [31] and the switch [35].
In regard to claim 12, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarinen et al. [Saarinen hereinafter, US 7,589,291]. Saarinen discloses [in Fig. 3] the module according to claim 7. Saarinen does not disclose that the protrusion comprises a ramp region and a shoulder region, wherein the ramp region preferably has a slope of 10° to 45°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any various shape, since selection and use of any known equivalent shape would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833