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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP23152999.1, filed on 01/24/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sieg et al. (US20220176897; hereinafter Sieg).
Regarding independent claim 1, Farges (fig. 3) discloses “A handle for a car door (3) comprising: a near field communication unit (10) including a microchip (81) and an antenna (41), the antenna including a coil and an elongated connection part configured for cooperating with the microchip (see fig. 3), a body (body of 10) configured to be fixed on the car door, the body presenting a reception area (area for receiving 41) configured to receive the antenna, an overmolded portion (35, supporting 20) formed on the body and defining an encapsulating zone (20) including an entirety of the coil and part of the elongated connection part (20 includes all of 41 and part of 90), the elongated connection part comprising a terminal portion including a cooperation extremity configured to cooperate with the microchip (90 designed to connect to 80), the terminal portion being outside the encapsulated zone (fig. 3)”.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieg in view of Araki et al. (JP2022092655A; hereinafter Araki).
Regarding claim 2, Sieg discloses the handle according to claim 1 as shown previsouly.
Sieg does not disclose “further comprising a metal covering layer formed on the overmolded portion and/or on the body, the overmolded portion presenting a free external area in front of the coil according to a winding axis of the coil so as to permit near field communication exchanges”.
However, Araki (figs. 1-3) teaches “The handle according to Claim 1, further comprising a metal covering layer (130) formed on the overmolded portion and/or on the body (see fig. 2b), the overmolded portion presenting a free external area (133) in front of the coil according to a winding axis of the coil so as to permit near field communication exchanges”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Araki and make Sieg’s handle further comprising a metal covering layer formed on the overmolded portion and/or on the body, the overmolded portion presenting a free external area in front of the coil according to a winding axis of the coil so as to permit near field communication exchanges, in order to cover the unit without affecting reception and transmission of the NFC antenna.
Regarding claim 6, Siege discloses the handle according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Sieg does not disclose “wherein the antenna is constituted by a flexible printed circuit board including a substrate and conductive tracks defining the coil and the elongated connection part”.
Araki (figs. 1-3) teaches “wherein the antenna is constituted by a flexible printed circuit board including a substrate and conductive tracks defining the coil and the elongated connection part (¶[0005]; When communication is performed using the electromagnetic induction method or the electromagnetic coupling method, the secondary antenna is formed by forming a loop antenna and a resonance capacitor on a flexible substrate. However, a wound antenna made of a coated conductor becomes thicker depending on the diameter of the conductor. On the other hand, in order to pull out both ends of the loop antenna wiring to one location, an antenna formed from metal foil or the like requires that at least one end be routed through a through hole to the surface opposite the antenna surface, or that a bridge wiring be routed over the antenna with an insulating layer sandwiched between them on the antenna surface side, resulting in a complex structure. Furthermore, the resonant capacitor requires two electrode plates to be spaced apart by a certain distance, which means that the sheet attached to the movable door glass becomes thick. Therefore, there is a risk that the attached sheet may come off when the movable door glass is opened or closed. Furthermore, the shape and thickness of the antenna and the resonant capacitor must be precisely controlled in order to obtain appropriate resonant frequency characteristics)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Araki and make Sieg’s handle wherein the antenna is constituted by a flexible printed circuit board including a substrate and conductive tracks defining the coil and the elongated connection part, in order to allow the unit to fit into more spaces and keep the handle flat.
Regarding claim 7, Siege discloses the handle according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Sieg does not disclose “wherein the reception area for the antenna is a trench made in the body”.
Araki (figs. 1-3) teaches “The handle according to Claim 1, wherein the reception area for the antenna is a trench made in the body (133 is a trench like structure)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Araki and make Sieg’s handle wherein the reception area for the antenna is a trench made in the body, in order to keep the handle flat.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieg and Araki, further in view of Despreaux et al. (US20230332444; hereinafter Despreaux).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sieg discloses the handle of claim 1 as shown previously.
Sieg does not disclose “wherein the metal covering layer is a chromed layer”.
However, Despreaux teaches using chromed cover layers in car door handles with antenna (¶[0030]; The first part 7a may be made of plastics and the second part 7b may be made of plastics and covered by chrome).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Despreaux and make Sieg’s handle wherein the metal covering layer is a chromed layer, in order to avoid rusting and other breakdown.
Furthermore, it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieg and Araki, further in view of Liubakka et al. (US10351099; hereinafter Liubakka).
Regarding claim 4, Sieg discloses “The handle according to Claim 1, wherein the antenna is constituted by a wire forming the coil and the elongated connection part, the wire comprising two extremities configured to be welded to the microchip or to the printed circuit board (connects via 90)”.
Sieg does not disclose that the wire is made of copper.
However, Liubakka teaches that it is known that loop antennas can be made out of copper (Col. 6 lines 66-67 and Col. 7 lines 1-3; The antenna 724 may be a loop type antenna having any desired arrangement including any desired material(s) defining the antenna conductor 740 such as, without limitation, silver-based conductors, copper-based conductors or low resistance inks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liubakka and make Siegi’s handle wherein the wire is copper, in order to have the antenna conduct properly.
Furthermore, it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, Sieg discloses “The handle according to Claim 1, wherein the antenna is constituted by a wire forming the coil and the elongated connection part and a neutral material frame supporting the coil and/or the elongated connection part (supported by 20)”.
Sieg does not disclose that the wire is made of copper.
However, Liubakka teaches that it is known that loop antennas can be made out of copper (Col. 6 lines 66-67 and Col. 7 lines 1-3; The antenna 724 may be a loop type antenna having any desired arrangement including any desired material(s) defining the antenna conductor 740 such as, without limitation, silver-based conductors, copper-based conductors or low resistance inks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liubakka and make Sieg’s handle wherein the wire is copper, in order to have the antenna conduct properly.
Furthermore, it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. 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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights