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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive features of the claimed invention is respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that “either or both of one end portion and the other end portion of the displaceable member in a longitudinal direction of the displaceable member being connected to the base portion”, which is the broader recitation, and, at the same time, that “the one end portion of the displaceable member is connected to the base portion, and the other end portion thereof is the displaceable portion”, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites that “either or both of one end portion and the other end portion of the displaceable member in a longitudinal direction of the displaceable member being connected to the base portion”, which is the broader recitation, and that “both of the one end portion and the other end portion of the displaceable member are connected to the base portion via leg portions”, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, the claim 8 recites “a door handle for a vehicle” while claim 1 already recites “a vehicle door handle”. The body of claim 8 does not further limit or define the structural details of the detection device disclosed in the independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leonardi et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0011096) (hereafter Leonardi).
Regarding claim 1, Leonardi teaches a detection device, which is provided in an interior of a vehicle door handle including an inner casing (i.e., inner cover 219) (see Fig. 15), the detection device comprising:
a base portion having a longitudinal shape extending along a longitudinal direction of the door handle (i.e., PCB 235) (see Fig. 15), the base portion being disposed fixedly to the inner casing (i.e., via the end supports 214 and 216) (see Fig. 15), and the base portion being configured to deform in response to application of a pressure to the inner casing (i.e., a bending deflection of the handle PCB 235 as a result of it being pushed outwardly by the outward protrusion 238) (see paragraph section [0084]);
a displaceable member having a longitudinal shape extending along the longitudinal direction of the door handle (i.e., inside surface 225 having a longitudinal shape and extending along the longitudinal direction of the door handle and force transmitter 230 having a longitudinal shape and extending along the longitudinal direction of the door handle) (see Fig. 15), the displaceable member being provided to face the base portion (i.e., force transmitter 230 face the PCB 235) (see Fig. 15),
either or both of one end portion and the other end portion of the displaceable member in a longitudinal direction of the displaceable member being connected to the base portion (i.e., force transmitter 230 may overlie the force-based sensor 228 to spread forces applied thereto to the PCB 235 around the force-based sensor 228 and having a U-shaped cross-section) (see paragraph section [0085]), and the displaceable member including a displaceable portion configured to be displaced (i.e., the force transmitter 230 may be made of a resilient material, such as EPDM rubber and may have a U-Shaped cross-section. The force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph section [0085]) relatively to the base portion in accordance with deformation of the base portion (i.e., the inside surface 225 of the outer cover 218 defines an inward protrusion 226 extending perpendicularly therefrom for engaging a force-based sensor 228 when the outer cover 218 is deformed inwardly as a result of an inward force 242 applied to the outer surface 222 and the force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph sections [0083]-[0085]); and
a sensor configured to detect deformation of the displaceable portion (i.e., force-based sensor 228) (see Fig. 15),
wherein the one end portion of the displaceable member is connected to the base portion, and the other end portion thereof is the displaceable portion (i.e., the force transmitter 230 may be made of a resilient material, such as EPDM rubber and may have a U-Shaped cross-section. The force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph section [0085]), and the displaceable portion is displaced in the longitudinal direction of the door handle relative to the base portion (i.e., a hinged coupling 232 may join the outer cover 218 to the first end support 214 for allowing pivotal movement between the covers 218, 219 and the handle base 212) (see paragraph sections [0083]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Leonardi teaches that the displaceable member includes a plurality of leg portions extending toward the base portion, the plurality of leg portions being configured to retain edge portions of the base portion (i.e., the U-shaped force transmitter 230 retain the PCB 235 in the direction of the applied force such that force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph section [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, Leonardi teaches that the sensor is a strain sensor configured to detect strain occurring in accordance with displacement of the displaceable portion in the longitudinal direction of the door handle (i.e., force-based sensor 28 may be configured to output a variable electrical signal, in an analog form or a digital form, in response to a varying level of applied force input F further rendering the input less determinable by a bystander, as well as providing for more levels of user input to a user without requiring intricate motion gestures compared to existing capacitive sensors) (see paragraph section [0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Leonardi teaches a detection device, which is provided in an interior of a vehicle door handle including an inner casing (i.e., inner cover 219) (see Fig. 15), the detection device comprising:
a base portion having a longitudinal shape extending along a longitudinal direction of the door handle (i.e., PCB 235) (see Fig. 15), the base portion being disposed fixedly to the inner casing (i.e., via the end supports 214 and 216) (see Fig. 15), the base portion being configured to deform in response to application of a pressure to the inner casing (i.e., a bending deflection of the handle PCB 235 as a result of it being pushed outwardly by the outward protrusion 238) (see paragraph section [0084]);
a displaceable member having a longitudinal shape extending along the longitudinal direction of the door handle (i.e., inside surface 225 having a longitudinal shape and extending along the longitudinal direction of the door handle and force transmitter 230 having a longitudinal shape and extending along the longitudinal direction of the door handle) (see Fig. 15), the displaceable member being provided to face the base portion (i.e., force transmitter 230 face the PCB 235) (see Fig. 15), the displaceable member being provided to face the base portion (i.e., force transmitter 230 face the PCB 235) (see Fig. 15),
either or both of one end portion and the other end portion of the displaceable member in a longitudinal direction of the displaceable member being connected to the base portion (i.e., force transmitter 230 may overlie the force-based sensor 228 to spread forces applied thereto to the PCB 235 around the force-based sensor 228 and having a U-shaped cross-section) (see paragraph section [0085]), the displaceable member including a displaceable portion configured to be displaced (i.e., the force transmitter 230 may be made of a resilient material, such as EPDM rubber and may have a U-Shaped cross-section. The force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph section [0085]) relatively to the base portion in accordance with deformation of the base portion (i.e., the inside surface 225 of the outer cover 218 defines an inward protrusion 226 extending perpendicularly therefrom for engaging a force-based sensor 228 when the outer cover 218 is deformed inwardly as a result of an inward force 242 applied to the outer surface 222 and the force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph sections [0083]-[0085]); and
a sensor configured to detect deformation of the displaceable portion (i.e., force-based sensor 228) (see Fig. 15),
wherein both of the one end portion and the other end portion of the displaceable member are connected to the base portion via leg portions (i.e., the force transmitter 230 may be made of a resilient material, such as EPDM rubber and may have a U-Shaped cross-section. The force transmitter 230 may absorb excessive or abuse forces to protect the force-based sensor 228 from damage) (see paragraph section [0085]),
a center portion between the one end portion and the other end portion is the displaceable portion (i.e., center portion of the U-shaped force transmitter 30) (see Fig. 15), and the displaceable portion is displaced in a direction closer to the base portion by portions of the leg portions on a vehicle-outer side being tilted outward in accordance with the deformation of the base portion (i.e., a hinged coupling 232 may join the outer cover 218 to the first end support 214 for allowing pivotal movement between the covers 218, 219 and the handle base 212) (see paragraph sections [0083]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Leonardi teaches that the sensor is a strain sensor configured to detect strain occurring in accordance with displacement of the displaceable portion in the direction closer to the base portion (i.e., force-based sensor 28 may be configured to output a variable electrical signal, in an analog form or a digital form, in response to a varying level of applied force input F further rendering the input less determinable by a bystander, as well as providing for more levels of user input to a user without requiring intricate motion gestures compared to existing capacitive sensors) (see paragraph section [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Leonardi teaches a door handle for a vehicle, the door handle comprising: a casing (i.e., formed by covers 218 and 219) (see Fig. 15); and the detection device according to claim 1, the detection device being provided in an interior of the casing (i.e., interior of the covers 218 and 219) (see Fig. 15), the casing being formed of an outer casing provided on a vehicle-outer side (i.e., cover 218) (see Fig. 15) and the inner casing provided on a vehicle-inner side (i.e., cover 219) (see Fig. 15), the outer casing and the inner casing being combined with each other (i.e., he covers 118, 119 may thus also be pivotably coupled to the closure of the vehicle) (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 9, Leonardi teaches that the displaceable portion is displaced in the direction closer to the base portion by the portions of the leg portions on the vehicle-outer side being tilted outward in accordance with the deformation of the base portion (i.e., force transmitter 230 may overlie the force-based sensor 228 to spread forces applied thereto to the PCB 235 around the force-based sensor 228 and having a U-shaped cross-section) (see paragraph section [0085]), the displaceable member being stretched in the longitudinal direction of the displaceable member, and the displaceable member being elastically deformed toward a vehicle-inner side so as to be flat (i.e., a hinged coupling 232 may join the outer cover 218 to the first end support 214 for allowing pivotal movement between the covers 218, 219 and the handle base 212) (see paragraph sections [0083]-[0087]).
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0011096) (hereafter Leonardi) in view of Machir et al. (Pat. No. Us 10,001,418) (hereafter Machir).
Regarding claim 4, Leonardi as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the sensor includes a fixed portion disposed fixedly to the base portion, and a shaft projecting from the fixed portion toward the displaceable member, and the shaft is engaged with an engaging portion provided in the displaceable portion. However, Machir teaches that the sensor (i.e., force sensor 100) (see Fig. 1A-B) includes a fixed portion disposed fixedly to the base portion (i.e., sense die 120) (see Fig. 1-B), and a shaft projecting from the fixed portion toward the displaceable member (i.e., actuation element 110) (see Fig. 1A-B), and the shaft is engaged with an engaging portion provided in the displaceable portion (i.e., the actuation element 110 may be configured to transmit a uniaxial force to the plane of the sense die 120) (see Column 6, lines 11-29). In view of the teaching of Machir, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an actuation element in order to increase the sensor sensitivity.
Regarding claim 7, Leonardi as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the sensor includes a fixed portion disposed fixedly to the base portion, and a shaft projecting from the fixed portion toward the displaceable member, and the shaft is engaged with an engaging portion provided in the displaceable portion. However, Leonardi teaches that the sensor (i.e., force sensor 100) (see Fig. 1A-B) includes a fixed portion disposed fixedly to the base portion (i.e., sense die 120) (see Fig. 1-B), and a shaft projecting from the fixed portion toward the displaceable member (i.e., actuation element 110) (see Fig. 1A-B), and the shaft is engaged with an engaging portion provided in the displaceable portion (i.e., the actuation element 110 may be configured to transmit a uniaxial force to the plane of the sense die 120) (see Column 6, lines 11-29). In view of the teaching of Machir, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an actuation element in order to increase the sensor sensitivity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855