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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-5, 7-20, and 26 and the cancellation of claim 6 filed October 3, 2025. Claims 21-25 and 27 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 13-15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 8 and 9, the phrase “an operation slot formed along which a linkage member co-operating the operating member and the blocking lever is moved” should be changed to “an operation slot along which a linkage member, cooperating with the operation member and the blocking lever, is moved.”
In regards to claim 5, line 3, the phrase “or moved” should be removed.
In regards to claim 7, line 3, the phrase “an internal surface” should be changed to “a second internal surface” such that there is no confusion between the internal surfaces recited in claim 7.
In regards to claim 8, line 2, a comma should be inserted after the word “formed,” in lines 3 and 4, the phrase “a branching position” should be changed to “the branching position,” and in lines 4 and 5, the phrase “corresponding to a location at which the blocking slot branches off from the operation slot” should be removed since this limitation is now recited in claim 1.
In regards to claim 13, line 6, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “an internal surface.”
In regards to claim 14, line 2, the phrase “is formed” should be changed to “formed.”
In regards to claim 15, line 3, the phrase “a portion of an internal surface greater than” should be changed to “a portion of an internal surface is greater than,” and lines 5-7 should read as follows: “wherein the internal surface is one of a plurality of internal surfaces of the blocking slot, wherein the one internal surface of the plurality of internal surfaces supports the linkage member as the linkage member moves into the blocking slot” such that it is clear that the supporting limitation refers to the one internal surface and not the plurality of internal surfaces.
In regards to claim 18, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the operation member is a door handle and the linkage member is included on a door handle lever, and wherein the door handle and the door handle lever are part of a door handle assembly, such that the door handle and the door handle lever are movable relative to a housing of the door handle assembly.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-20, and 26 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.
In regards to claim 1, line 8, it is unclear what structure the operation slot is formed in, i.e. “an operation slot formed” in what? For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, lines 8 and 9, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrase “a linkage member co-operating the operation member and the blocking lever. It is understood from the specification that the linkage member cooperates with the operation member and the blocking lever, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 2, the phrase “a distance of the blocking lever from the operation slot” suggests that the operation slot is separate from the blocking lever, when it is understood from the specification that the operation slot is formed in the blocking lever. It is also unclear what distance applicant is referring to in the claim, and therefore, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 5, the phrase “the blocking slot is positioned behind the operation slot in a situation that the blocking lever is rotated or moved” suggests that the blocking slot moves relative to the operation slot. It is understood from the specification that the blocking slot and the operation slot are in fixed positions relative to one another, and therefore, it is unclear what positions applicant intends to claim. Furthermore, there is no support in the specification for the blocking lever to move, as suggested by the phrase “is rotated or moved.” The specification only provides support for the blocking lever to rotate, and will be examined as such.
In regards to claim 11, the phrase “the inclination portion is positioned father and farther from an internal surface of the operation slot” suggests that the inclination portion moves relative to the operation slot. It is understood from the specification that the inclination portion is fixed relative to the operation slot, and the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 18, the relationship between the “door handle” of line 3 and the “door handle” of line 5 is unclear from the claim language, the relationship between the “door handle assembly” of line 3 and the “door handle assembly of line 7 is unclear from the claim language, and the relationship between the “door handle lever” of line 3 and the “door handle lever” of line 6 is unclear from the claim language. Furthermore, the specification does not provide support for the door handle lever to cause the door handle to move. It is understood from the specification and is known in the art that operation of an operating member or handle causes a lever associated with the handle to move, and therefore, the claim will be examined as best understood. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 26, it is unclear how the operation slot is formed in a straight line since claim 1 now recites that the operation slot includes a protrusion portion, which would cause the operation slot to not be straight. For examination purposes, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claims 3, 4, 7-10, 12-17, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-20, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagata et al. (WO 2014/203930 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Nagata et al. discloses a door opening and closing apparatus for a vehicle for preventing a door of the vehicle from opening during a collision, the apparatus comprising: an operation member 110 configured to operate to open the door, and a blocking lever 141 engaged to the operation member and configured to limit operating of the operation member during the collision of the vehicle, wherein the blocking lever includes: an operation slot (see Figure 4, Version 1 below) along which a linkage member 146 cooperating with the operation member and the blocking lever is moved from a locking position (Figure 4) to an unlocking position (Figure 8) during normal operation of the door opening and closing apparatus; and a blocking slot (see Figure 4, Version 1 below) branched off from the operation slot, wherein during the collision of the vehicle, the blocking lever is configured to be rotated, and the linkage member moves from the operation slot to the blocking slot (Figure 10), so that the blocking lever is blocked from reaching the unlocking position during the collision of the vehicle, wherein a protrusion portion 144e is formed at a branching position at which the blocking slot branches off from the operation slot (Figure 4), so that the protrusion portion protrudes toward the blocking slot (at least a dimension of the protrusion portion, such as its width, protrudes toward or in the direction of the blocking slot, Figure 4), and wherein during the normal operation of the door opening and closing apparatus, the linkage member moves over the protrusion portion and moves from the branching position to the unlocking position in the operation slot (the linkage member moves over the surface portion of the protrusion portion shown in Figure 6 below as the linkage member moves from the branching position, corresponding to the location of the protrusion portion, to the unlocking position in Figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Nagata et al. discloses that the blocking slot is formed so that a distance of a portion of the operation slot increases toward a first side (side at reference character 143, Figure 4) of the blocking lever from a second side 142 of the blocking lever, which is hinged to a housing 120 (hinged to the housing via at least component 131).
In regards to claim 3, Nagata et al. discloses that the blocking slot is formed so that an imaginary central axis of the blocking slot is inclined with a predetermined angle with respect to an imaginary central axis of the operation slot (see Figure 4, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 4, Nagata et al. discloses that the blocking slot is formed so that the blocking slot extends from the operation slot in a direction that moves away therefrom (the blocking slot extends from the operating slot at a location near the end of the indicator line for reference character 146a in Figure 4) transversely to a rotation direction of the blocking lever (rotation direction D1 or D2, Figure 4).
In regards to claim 5, Nagata et al. discloses that the blocking slot branches off from the operation slot so that the blocking slot is positioned behind the operation when the blocking lever is rotated (positioned behind when the blocking lever is viewed looking from the operation member 110 towards the blocking lever in Figures 4, 6, and 8).
In regards to claim 7, Nagata et al. discloses that the protrusion portion is formed on a first internal surface of the operation slot (surface at the indicator line for reference character 144a, Figure 4) that faces a second internal surface of the operation slot, in which the blocking surface is not formed (surface on the opposite side of the operating slot from the first internal surface, Figure 4).
In regards to claim 8, Nagata et al. discloses that the protrusion portion is formed, so that the protrusion portion is brought into contact with the linkage member in a situation in which the linkage member reaches the branching position (contacts the protrusion portion at least during movement of the linkage member to the blocking slot, Figure 10).
In regards to claim 9, Nagata et al. discloses that the protrusion portion is formed, so that a distance from the protrusion portion to an end portion of the blocking slot is shorter than a distance from the protrusion portion to an end portion of the operation slot (see Figure 4, Version 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
710
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 10, Nagata et al. discloses that the protrusion portion includes an inclination portion (portion at the end of the indicator line for reference character 144e, Figure 4) formed on the protrusion portion, and wherein the linkage member is moved along the inclination portion from the operation slot to the blocking slot in a situation that the blocking lever is rotated due to the collision of the vehicle (moves along the inclination portion to the position in Figure 10).
In regards to claim 11, Nagata et al. discloses that the inclination portion is formed in an inclined manner, such that the inclination portion is inclined relative to an internal surface of the operation slot (surface at the indicator line for reference character 144a, Figure 4), on which the protrusion portion is formed, along a direction in which the linkage member is moved (the inclination portion is inclined or sloped, such that it gradually is spaced more and more from the internal surface towards the end 144c of the blocking slot, such that the triangular shape of the protrusion portion is formed, Figure 4).
In regards to claim 12, Nagata et al. discloses that the inclination portion is formed in parallel with an imaginary central axis of the blocking slot (see Figure 4, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 13, Nagata et al. discloses that the inclination portion is formed so that the inclination portion lies on a same imaginary line as an imaginary line of a communicating portion (portion where the operation slot and the blocking slot meet, Figure 4) or is positioned closer to one side 142 of the blocking lever which is hinged to a housing 120 (hinged via at least component 131) than the communicating portion (the imaginary line being along the distance line from the protrusion portion to the end of the operation slot shown in Figure 4, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action and the inclination portion being positioned closer to the hinged end 142 than the communicating portion, since the inclination portion is located between the communicating portion and the hinged end, Figure 4), and wherein the imaginary line of the communicating portion extends from an internal surface, among a plurality of internal surfaces of the blocking slot, which supports the linkage member as the linkage member moves into the blocking slot (extends from the surface 144b, which extends to a position between the linkage member 146 and reference character 143 in Figure 4).
In regards to claim 14, Nagata et al. discloses that the protrusion portion includes a guiding portion (see Figure 4, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action) formed on the protrusion portion, and the guiding portion is configured for guiding the linkage member to a remaining section (section closest to end 142, Figure 4) of the operation slot after the linkage member is moved through a communicating portion of the blocking lever (portion where the operation slot and the blocking slot meet, Figure 4) and moved along the inclination portion to an end portion (tip of protrusion portion, Figure 4) of the inclination portion (the guiding portion guides the linkage member to the position in Figure 8 from the position in Figure 10 after a collision had occurred, in which the spring 145 biases the blocking lever back to the position in Figure 4, such that the linkage member has moved along the inclination portion and through the communicating portion, and after the operation member is operated under normal conditions or when the load is not applied to the vehicle, Paragraph 19 of the Computer Generated Translation).
In regards to claim 15, Nagata et al. discloses that the protrusion portion is formed so that a distance between a top portion of the protrusion portion and a portion of an internal surface (corresponding to the distance from the protrusion portion to the end of the operation slot, as shown in Figure 4, Version 2 on Page 15 of the current Office Action) is greater than a diameter of the linkage member (Figure 4), and wherein the internal surface is one of a plurality of internal surfaces of the blocking slot (surface 144b of the blocking slot extends to a position between the linkage member 146 and reference character 143, Figure 4), wherein the one internal surface of the plurality of internal surfaces supports the linkage member as the linkage member moves into the blocking slot (support movement of the linkage member, Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10).
In regards to claim 16, Nagata et al. discloses that the operation slot is formed along a tracking path (path corresponding to the central axis of the operation slot in Figure 4, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action), along which the linkage member is moved during the normal operation of the door opening and closing apparatus (Figures 4, 6, and 8).
In regards to claim 17, Nagata et al. discloses a hinge connection hole (hole for shaft 142a, Figure 4) for hinge-connecting the blocking lever to a side of the door opening and closing apparatus is formed in a first side of the blocking lever (Figure 4), and wherein the operation slot is formed to extend toward a second side of the blocking lever (side at reference character 143, Figure 4) from a position which is spaced a predetermined distance away from the hinge connection hole (Figure 4).
In regards to claim 18, Nagata et al. discloses that the operation member is a door handle (Figure 1) and the linkage member is included on a door handle lever 114, and wherein the door handle and the door handle lever are part of a door handle assembly, such that the door handle and the door handle lever are movable relative to a housing 120 of the door handle assembly (Figures 4 and 5).
In regards to claim 19, Nagata et al. discloses that the blocking lever is rotatably provided on the housing (Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10), and wherein the linkage member of the door handle lever is provided to move along the operation slot (Figures 4, 6, and 8).
In regards to claim 20, Nagata et al. discloses that during the collision of the vehicle, the linkage member of the door handle lever is moved along the operation slot and is moved from the operation slot to the blocking slot, thereby blocking the door handle from completely popping upwards from the housing (Figure 10).
In regards to claim 26, Nagata et al. discloses that each of the operation slot and the blocking slot is formed in a straight line, at least in portions, and extends along the blocking lever (Figure 4).
Response to Arguments
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning the amendments to claim 1 and the Nagata et al. reference, applicant is referred to the interpretation of the Nagata et al. reference applied to claim 1 above and made in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the specification, the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, most of the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, some are maintained since there were no amendments or remarks regarding these specific rejections and there are new rejections and claim objections set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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, 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 January 13, 2026