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
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruse US 20140292004 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Ruse teaches: A car access assembly comprising: a handle (Fig 4: 10, 20, 24) configured to be attached on a car door (Fig 2: handle 10 is shown attached to car door 12a); and an electronic sensing unit (Fig 6: 16, 18, 24) comprising: a sensor (Fig 6: 16) fixedly attached to and in direct contact with an extension portion of the handle, the extension portion being formed integrally as a single piece with the rest of the handle, and/or the sensor being fixedly attached to and in direct contact with a bracket (Fig 6: 24), the bracket being fixedly attached to and in direct contact with the handle (shown in Fig 5) to transmit a constraint applied to the handle (P0018-19), wherein the at least one of the extension portion and/or the bracket is configured to be installed on or facing an internal side of a part of the car door (Figs 5 and 2 show that 18, which is a part of the bracket 24. is installed on the internal side of the car door) extending according to a reference plane (Fig 6 shows that bracket 24 extends along the x-y plane, therefore it is parallel to a reference plane which also extends in the x-y direction but is located between the front of door panel 12a and handle 10); and a fixing mechanism for the sensor (Fig 6: 18 is a fixing mechanism), the fixing mechanism being configured to attach together to the part of the car door, the at least one of the extension portion and/or the bracket, and the sensor (Figs 5 and 2 show how the fixing mechanism 18 attaches the bracket 24, to which sensor 16 is attached, to 20 to create handle 10 and from handle 10 to the car door 12a) so that a constraint applied to the handle is transmitted to the sensor (P0018-19) for detection of a command (P0018-19) via the at least one of the extension portion and/or the bracket (P0018-19).
Regarding Claim 2, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the sensor includes at least one strain gauge (P0019, the sensor 16 is a strain gauge), wherein the at least one strain gauge is configured to be deformed when the constraint is applied to the handle (P0016-17, and 19).
Regarding Claim 3, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one of the extension portion of the handle and the bracket extends parallel to the reference plane (Fig 6 shows bracket 24 extending in the x-y plane, therefore it is parallel to the x-y plane), wherein the at least one of the extension portion and the bracket is located between the internal side and the sensor transversally to the reference plane (Fig 6 shows 18 of the bracket extending perpendicular to the bracket, and therefore the door 12a and the reference plane, which is located between the handle 10 and door 12a, therefore 18 of the bracket is located between the internal side of the door and the sensor 16 and it extends transversely to the reference plane).
Regarding Claim 4, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 3, wherein the at least one of the extension portion and the bracket presents a recess adapted to receive the sensor (Fig 6: bracket 24 shows recess in which the sensor 16 is received).
Regarding Claim 5, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one of the extension portion and the bracket presents a recess adapted to receive the sensor (Fig 6: bracket 24 shows recess in which the sensor 16 is received).
Regarding Claim 6, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the fixing mechanism comprises a main fastener (Fig 6: 18 is the main fastener) which is configured to extend according to a main direction transversal to the reference plane (Fig 6: 18 extends perpendicular to the x-y plane, and when it is mounted to the door 12a it extends transversal to the reference plane, which is an x-y plane located between the handle and the door), the main fastener being configured to cooperate with the sensor, the at least one of the extension portion and the bracket (), the part of the car door and the handle (Fig 6 shows how the main fastener 18 connects to the sensor 16 via the bracket 24, and Fig 2 and P0016 to the car door).
Regarding Claim 7, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 6, further comprising a support of the sensor (Fig 6 shows a recess in bracket 24 that acts as a support for the sensor 16), wherein the at least one of the extension portion and the bracket, and the part of the car door each presents a corresponding through opening for passage of the main fastener (P0016 describes the opening for main fastener 18 in the car door 12a and Fig 6 shows the through opening in bracket 24 through which 18 is located).
Regarding Claim 8, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 6, wherein the handle comprises a socket adapted to cooperate with the main fastener (shown in Fig 6, the socket is where the main fastener 18 extends through 24 of the handle).
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruse US 20140292004 A1, in view of Guanzon US 20060163908 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 8 wherein the main fastener is a stud (P0016) and the socket includes a threaded portion (It is the position of the Examiner that the socket through which main fastener 18 extends through is threaded as studs are known to be threaded). Ruse does not teach that the main fastener is a screw. Guanzon teaches that it is known in the art to fix a door handle (Guanzon: 10) to a vehicle door (Guanzon: 14) via conventional retaining type fasteners including self-threading, which are screws, and threaded, which are bolts and studs (P0022). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the studs as taught by Ruse, with screws as taught by Guanzon as they are equivalent in performing the same function of fixing one object to another.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruse US 20140292004 A1, in view of Bingle US 20160123045 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the electronic sensing unit comprises two fixing mechanisms (Fig 6 shows that there are two distinct fixing mechanism 18, one on the left and one on the right). Rues does not teach: wherein the electronic sensing unit comprises two distinct sensors. Bingle teaches that it is known in the art to have an electronic sensing unit (Bingle: Fig 3: 40, 42, 50) with two distinct sensors (Bingle: Fig 4, there are two distinct sensors, right 40 and left 40). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ruse to have two sensors as taught by Bingle, resulting in providing a signal redundancy that serves as a backup in the event one of the sensors fail, thereby improving reliability of the sensing unit (Bingle P0023).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruse US 20140292004 A1, in view of Herman US 20230258030 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, Ruse teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the car access assembly includes a further fixing element (Ruse: Figs 4-6 show there is a left and right 18, both are fixing mechanisms). Ruse does not teach: wherein the electronic sensing unit comprises a further sensor mounted on an external side of the part of the car door, the car access assembly including a further fixing element for maintaining the further sensor on the external side. Herman teaches that it is known in the art to have multiple sensors (Herman: sensor 82 is one or more sensors as described in P0032) mounted on an external side (Herman: 31, P0015) of a part of the car door (Herman: Fig 1C and Fig 4 show the sensor 82 mounted on the external side 31 of car door 14). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ruse, to include a further sensor mounted externally of the car door, as taught by Herman, resulting in less false signals or detections (Herman: P0032), thereby increasing accuracy of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 12, Ruse, in view of Herman, teaches: The car access assembly according to Claim 11, wherein, the further fixing element includes a first part (Ruse: shorter portion of each fixing mechanism 18 that is shown in Fig 6) adapted to be received in a further recess of the handle (Ruse: Fig 5 shows how the shorter portion of each fixing mechanism 18 in 6 is inserted into a respective recess in the handle 10) and a second part (Ruse: Fig 5 shows the longer portion of 18, this is the second part of the fixing mechanism) configured to cooperate with the first part (Ruse: Figs 2, 5, and 6 show that the first and second parts of the fixing mechanism 18 cooperate to attach the door handle to the car door).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER F CALLAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon through Thur 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights