DETAILED ACTION
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 appeal brief filed March 9, 2026.
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 base, the anchor point and the outward slope of the cover, and the limitation of claim 14, see 112 2nd paragraph rejection below, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “16” has been used to designate two different structures in fig 3, see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
691
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The one in the left side should be deleted.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 requires an actuator that actuates a door assembly. According to the applicant, this is the actuator in question:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, as described and as illustrated, the only actuator is the lever 7, that when interacts with the strain gauge 18 or the switch 22, it will actuate the door assembly.
That “actuator” shown above is not actuating anything, it is actually a surface to support the lever.
Furthermore, applicant clearly shows the finger interacting with the lever, not the structure that he points out as the actuator.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as described and illustrated, the lever, when pressure is applied, will operatively actuate a door assembly. Correction is required.
Claim 14 requires that the actuator is “connected” to the lever at a 1st end. At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since there is no support for the claimed invention.
There is no connection between the lever and the actuator, it is a one-piece member, as illustrated. Also, claim 1 already define that the actuator is located between the anchor point and the base of the lever.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as defined by the applicant, the actuator is part of the lever. Cancellation of the claim 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, 4-7, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3096713 to Abdoun et al (Abdoun) in view of DE 19847212 to Boll.
PNG
media_image3.png
941
1029
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Abdoun discloses a motor vehicle that comprises a side door; an upwardly open recessed handle (1) arranged on the side door or on the motor vehicle; a supporting member extending from an anchor point to a base of a lever (7) extending along an outer side panel (14) of the side door and configured to move towards the outer side door panel based on an applied pressure.
The anchor point is below the base of the lever. The lever is configured to operatively actuate a door assembly when the lever is pressed towards the outer door panel.
Abdoun fails to disclose a cover flap, defining an outward slope in a closed position, and arranged on the side door to cover the recessed handle.
PNG
media_image4.png
702
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Boll teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a recessed handle (at 14) with a cover flap (4) that is pivotably arranged on the side door to cover the recessed handle. The cover flap has an outward slope in a closed position (outer surface of flap 4).
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 recessed handle described by Abdoun with a cover flap, as taught by Boll, in order to prevent access to the handle or the introduction of any undesired object (water, dust, etc.).
As to claim 4, Boll teaches that the cover flap (4) is spring-loaded into the closed position (not shown), and/or wherein the cover flap is configured to be driven electrically or magnetically (by drive unit 11).
As to claim 5, Abdoun discloses that the recessed handle is formed by an inner door panel (11) which extends outwards and flanged to an outer door panel (14).
As to claim 6, Abdoun discloses that a part of the recessed handle is additionally formed by a recess in a panel of a B-pillar (at 11).
As to claim 7, Abdoun discloses that the lever is for a door lock of the door assembly, and the lever is arranged in the recessed handle.
As to claim 9, Abdoun discloses that the device comprises a microswitch (6).
As to claim 10, Abdoun discloses that the recessed handle is open in the direction inclined toward the top surface of a vehicle.
As to claim 11, Abdoun discloses that the lever pivots about an axis at a 1st end of the lever, and wherein the base is at a second end of the lever, wherein the 2nd end is opposed the 1st end.
As to claim 12, Abdoun discloses that the supporting member comprises a 1st portion extending vertically along a ledge and a 2nd portion extending horizontal along the ledge.
As to claim 13, Abdoun discloses that the recessed handle comprises a 1st space for accommodating a user operation defining a 1st width. The base is arranged on the 1st space. The 1st space will be located between the top of the recessed handle and the and a ledge.
Abdoun fails to disclose a 2nd space defining a 2nd width, smaller than the 1st width, and between the cover flap.
Boll teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a 2nd space (at 10), with a smaller width than a 1st space.
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 recessed handle described by Abdoun with a 2nd space, as taught by Boll, in order to provide drainage to the handle.
In combination, the anchor point is capable of being arranged in the 2nd space.
As to claim 14, Abdoun discloses that the supporting member is part of the lever and that the lever is a “soft” component.
As to claim 15, Abdoun discloses that the lever is configured to apply pressure to a microswitch or a strain gauge (6) positioned between the outer side door panel and the lever when the lever moves toward the outer side door panel.
As to claim 16, Abdoun discloses that the base, the supporting member and the lever are part of an actuator assembly, wherein the outer side door panel comprises an outer door panel (14) and an inner door panel (9), and that the lever extends along the inner door panel.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable FR 3096713 to Abdoun et al (Abdoun) in view of DE 19847212 to Boll and further in view of US Pat No 6,416,115 to Ader et al (Ader) and US Pat No 11,542,731 to Leonardi et al (Leonardi).
Abdoun, as modified by Boll, fails to disclose that the recessed handle is at least partially lined with a plastic shell, and a light and/or a vibrator are/is arranged in the recessed handle.
PNG
media_image5.png
395
659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ader teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a recessed handle (10) that is manufactured so as to be at least partially lined with a plastic shell (15 and 16).
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 recessed handle described by Abdoun, as modified by Boll, being partially lined with a plastic shell, as taught by Ader, in order to provide a gripped area for the handle.
PNG
media_image6.png
635
1113
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Leonardi teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a recessed handle (10) with a light (36’) for illuminating the area of the handle and a vibrator (36”) to provide haptic feedback.
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 recessed handle described by Abdoun, as modified by Boll, with a vibrator or light, as taught by Leonardi, in order to provide feedback on operation and illuminate the area.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3096713 to Abdoun et al (Abdoun) in view of DE 19847212 to Boll and further in view of US Pat No 11,851,920 to Peterson et al (Peterson) and US Pat No 6,062,614 to Petzold.
Abdoun, as modified by Boll, fails to disclose that the recessed handle and/or the cover flap comprise(s) a seal, via which the cover flap seals the recessed handle in the closed position.
PNG
media_image7.png
532
447
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Peterson teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a recessed handle with cover flap (14) and a seal (15) on the recessed handle to seal the recessed handle when the cover flap is in the closed position.
PNG
media_image8.png
295
609
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Petzold teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a recessed handle with cover flap (3) and a seal (10) on the cover flap to seal the recessed handle when the cover flap is in the closed position.
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 recessed handle described by Abdoun, as modified by Boll, with a seal, as taught by either Peterson or Petzold, in order to seal the recessed handle when the cover flap is in the closed position.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3096713 to Abdoun et al (Abdoun) in view of DE 19847212 to Boll and further in view of DE 102016002070 to Buss et al (Buss) and DE 102018106657 to Bendel.
Abdoun, as modified by Boll, fails to disclose that a handle shell is arranged on the recessed handle, wherein the handle shell has a soft component arranged in the recessed handle, and wherein a strain gauge of the actuator assembly is integrated into the soft component, or wherein the actuator assembly comprises a pivotable lever which is operatively connected to a strain gauge.
PNG
media_image9.png
341
557
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Buss teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle shell (2) with a soft component (6) arranged in the recessed handle, and wherein a strain gauge of the actuator (7) is integrated into the soft component.
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 device described by Abdoun, as modified by Boll and Abdoun, with a handle shell with a soft component, as taught by Buss, in order to provide a soft surface for the operation of the actuator.
PNG
media_image10.png
629
654
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Bendel teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electrical actuator as a pivotable lever with a strain gauge (14).
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 actuator described by Abdoun, as modified by Boll, as a pivotable lever, as taught by Bendel, in order to let the user known that the electrical actuator has being operated.
Propose amendment to the drawings to overcome the current objection:
New figs 7a and 7b, to clearly illustrate the invention
PNG
media_image11.png
801
1267
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
490
504
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Propose amendment to claim 1 (will require cancellation of claims 11, 12 and amendment to some claims):
-A motor vehicle comprising:
a side door;
an upwardly open recessed handle arranged on the side door or on the motor vehicle;
a lever extending along an outer side panel of the side door and configured to move towards the outer side door panel based on an applied pressure, the lever is pivotably about a first end;
a base located at a second end of the lever configured to support the lever to side door of the motor vehicle, wherein the second end is opposed the first end;
wherein the base comprises a horizontal portion extending from the second end of the lever and a vertical portion extending from the horizontal portion and terminating on the anchor point;
a cover flap pivotably arranged on the side door to cover the recessed handle;
wherein the cover flap has an outward slope in a closed position;
wherein the first end of the lever is located adjacent the opening of the upwardly open recessed handle;
wherein, the anchor point is below the base of the lever; and
wherein the lever is configured to operatively actuate a door assembly when the lever is pressed towards the outer door panel.-.
Response to Arguments
In view of an appeal conference, the Office has decided to reopen prosecution and, aside the rejection shown above, a propose amendment to the drawings and to claim 1 has been presented in this communication.
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claims 1, 11 and 12, the applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized what is being defined by the above features. According to the appellant, there is a misunderstanding of what the actuator is in question.
The Office concluded that no one having ordinary skill in the art would come up with the interpretation given by the appellant.
The applicant is required to clearly define the invention. The specification provides no support for the terms in question and the drawings does not clearly illustrate the invention claimed.
Here is what the applicant provides as what is the actuator in question:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
How does anyone have ordinary skill in the art come up with that interpretation of what the actuator is? Where in the current specification is that defined?
Furthermore, is that being the actuator in question, then how it configured to move toward the outer side door panel based on applied pressure? As clearly described in the specification, the only pressure applied is to the lever 17, not to the area that the appellant is referring to above.
Also, in view of the “definition” provided by the applicant in that attachment above, how that surface is “actuating”? As shown, the surface defined by the applicant is actually “supporting”, not actuating.
Also, the Office is still waiting an explanation of what is the base in question, since there is no support for a “base” in the specification. This is what the applicant mentions with respect to the term “base”:
PNG
media_image13.png
153
636
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Again, no one having ordinary skill in the art can look at fig 3, and paragraph 39 and come up with what really is the base in question.
As to the anchor point, the pivoting axis, applicant appears to acknowledge the previous interpretation by the examiner during prosecution. However, applicant is still required to illustrate the invention.
The applicant further argues that the rejection to claim 1 is improper because it fails to give the broadest reasonable interpretation of their plain meaning in view of the specification before determining whether the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are reasonably clear.
Here is what is defined in the specification:
PNG
media_image14.png
210
630
media_image14.png
Greyscale
As clearly shown above, by the current specification, the only member to be consider as an actuator is actually the lever 17, which interacts with a strain gauge 18 or a microswitch 22, to actuate the door lock to be opened. Therefore, “the actuator” in question has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation of their plain meaning in view of the specification.
As to the prior art rejection, in view of the applicant’s interpretation, a new prior art rejection has been made on the record.
Also, after further consideration, a propose amendment to claim 1 has been presented above in order to put the application in allowance condition.
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
April 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights