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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 October 2025, with respect to the objections to claim 1 and the drawings/specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 15 July 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Lee (US-10077585-B2) does not explicitly describe the vehicle handle components shown Figure 2 as ‘reinforcement’ structures, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). 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, in this case reinforcing the structural integrity of the vehicle handle assembly, then it satisfies the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein a reinforcing edge is further provided on the side of the reinforcement structure body corresponding to [[the]] a lock seat, and when the [[tailgate handle reinforcement structure]] reinforcement structure body is attached between the two supporting posts, the reinforcing edge is closely attached to the lock seat”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-10077585-B2) alone.
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses a car tailgate handle reinforcement structure (Figure 2) used to reinforce an easily broken car tailgate handle (interpreted as a statement of intended use, Lee’s structure is capable of being used to reinforce an easily broken car tailgate handle), wherein two supporting posts (42 Figure 3) are protruded on a car tailgate handle (10 Figure 2), and an end of each supporting post is provided with a keyhole contact surface (outer cylindrical surface of 42, Figure 3), and a keyhole (keyholes in posts 42 accommodating rod 43, Figure 2) is formed on the keyhole contact surfaces;
the car tailgate handle reinforcement structure is characterized in that:
the car tailgate handle reinforcement structure has a reinforcement structure body (20 Figure 3), the shape of one surface of the reinforcement structure body (21 Figure 3) is consistent with the shape of the car tailgate handle between the supporting posts (Figure 2 shows that these two shapes are consistent), two ends of another surface of the reinforcement structure body are provided with reinforcing supporting posts (41 Figure 3), the shape of one side surface of each reinforcing supporting post is consistent with the shape of one side surface of each supporting post (Figure 2 shows that these two shapes are consistent), the top end of each reinforcing supporting post is provided with a reinforcing keyhole contact surface (inner cylindrical surface of 41, Figure 3) whose shape is consistent with the shape of the keyhole contact surface (Figure 2 shows that these two shapes are consistent), and each reinforcing keyhole contact surface is provided with a reinforcing keyhole (41a Figure 2) completely corresponding to the positions of the keyholes (Figure 2 shows that these positions correspond), and the car tailgate handle reinforcement structure can be attached between the two supporting posts (as demonstrated Figure 2);
wherein a reinforcing edge (23a Figure 3) is further provided on the side of the reinforcement structure body corresponding to the lock seat (43a Figure 3), and when the tailgate handle reinforcement structure is attached between the two supporting posts, the reinforcing edge is closely attached to the lock seat (by means of connector 32, Figure 2);
Lee is silent on whether the car tailgate handle reinforcement structure is made of metal.
However, In re Leshin (277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416) held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Lee’s car tailgate handle reinforcement structure from metal, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use metal for the reinforcement structure due to its strength and durability.
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 Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675