DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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) 15-17, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Bingle et al. (US 9,696,839).
Regarding claim 15, Bingle et al. discloses an assembly for opening (abstract), closing, or opening and closing a vehicle door, the assembly comprising:
a grip member (10) configured to be attached to an external side of a vehicle door (c.3,l.17-20), the grip member comprising:
a base (10”, Fig.6) configured to extend from the vehicle door when the grip member is attached to the external side of the vehicle door; and
a gripping part (Fig.1c) extending from the base and toward an upper direction (note, direction, without frame of reference is taken as any direction) when the grip member is attached to the external side of the vehicle door; and
an electronic switch subassembly (16’) attached to the grip member and configured to be activated by a user's touch (c.10, l. 25-32) to send a signal to an electronic latch (command, c.8, l.21-23) to open the door, the electronic switch subassembly comprising a switch contact area (Fig.5) facing downwards when the grip member is attached to the external side of the vehicle door (claim 18).
Regarding claim 16, Bingle et al. discloses the assembly, wherein the gripping part comprises a traction surface (any surface) configured to allow exertion of a traction on the grip member to pull on the vehicle door (Fig.1 showing operation with a user’s touch), the traction surface facing the vehicle door when the grip member is attached to the external side of the vehicle door, and wherein the assembly is arranged so that a thumb of a user's hand can touch the switch contact area while one or more other fingers of the user's hand are touching the traction surface simultaneously.
Regarding claim 17, Bingle et al. discloses the assembly, further comprising a light source subassembly comprising a light source arranged so that at least part of the light source faces away from the vehicle door when the grip member is attached to the external side of the vehicle door (C. 2, l.30-38 discusses lighting control).
Regarding claim 19, Bingle et al. discloses the assembly, wherein the electronic switch subassembly comprises at least two switch elements (16’, c.24-l.26), each switch element comprising one or more switch(es), the at least two switch elements being arranged at different positions (taken as more than one switch not occupying the same space) with respect to the switch contact area so that a user's touch on the switch contact area activates at least one of the switches.
Regarding claim 20, Bingle et al. discloses the assembly, wherein each of the at least two switch elements comprises a first switch and a second switch (16’, c.24-l.26), the switch subassembly configured to be activated when: at least one of the first switches is activated; and at least one of the second switches is activated.
Regarding claim 24, Bingle et al. discloses the assembly, wherein the first switches and the second switches are configured such that a first output signal sent by each of the first switches when activated is inverted with respect to a second output signal sent by each of the second switches when activated.
Regarding claim 28, Bingle et al. discloses the assembly, further comprising a fixation element (mount, c.7, l. 34-37) configured to be attached to the vehicle door, wherein an aperture is arranged in the fixation element (Fig.6), the aperture allowing access to the switch contact area by a thumb of a user's hand.
Regarding claim 29, Bingle et al. discloses a method for mounting an assembly on a vehicle door, the method comprising: assembling the electronic switch subassembly to the grip member (Fig.5); arranging at least a part of the assembled electronic switch subassembly and grip member in the aperture of the fixation element; and attaching the fixation element to the vehicle door (Abstract).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bingle et al. (US 9,696,839) in view of Leonardi et al. (2020/0011096).
Regarding claim 18, Bingle et al. as modified by Leonardi et al. discloses the assembly, wherein the light source subassembly.
Bingle et al. does not disclose: a window part that is at least partially transparent to the light emitted by the light source, the window part being arranged on at least one of the base and a lower part of the grip member.
Leonardi et al. teaches a window part ([0069]; Leonardi et.) that is at least partially transparent to the light emitted by the light source, the window part being arranged on at least one of the base and a lower part of the grip member (Fig.5;Leonardi et al) for the purpose of providing a visual indicator and illumination of latch handle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bingle et al. with a window part that is at least partially transparent to the light emitted by the light source, the window part being arranged on at least one of the base and a lower part of the grip member as taught by Leonardi et al. for the expected benefit of providing a visual indicator and illumination of latch handle.
Claim 21-23, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bingle et al. (US 9,696,839) in view of Marlia et al. (2017/0314302).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, Bingle et al. as modified by Marlia et al. discloses the assembly, wherein the electronic switch subassembly.
Bingle et al. does not disclose: a first electrical subcircuit connecting the first switches together, and a second electrical subcircuit connecting the second switches together, the first electrical subcircuit being distinct from the second electrical subcircuit.
Marlia et al.) teaches a first electrical subcircuit (90; Marlia et al.)connecting the first switches together, and a second electrical subcircuit connecting the second switches together, the first electrical subcircuit being distinct from the second electrical subcircuit for the purpose of reducing common node output voltage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bingle et al. with a first electrical subcircuit connecting the first switches together, and a second electrical subcircuit connecting the second switches together, the first electrical subcircuit being distinct from the second electrical subcircuit as taught by Marlia et al. for the expected benefit of reducing common node output voltage.
Regarding claims 22 and 26, Bingle et al. as modified by Marlia et al. discloses the assembly according comprising a frame (14”; Bingle et al.) configured to cooperate with the switch contact area so as to define an inner space wherein the at least two switch elements are arranged (switch elements are engagble Fig.1 and 6; Bingle et al.).
Regarding claim 23 and 27, Bingle et al. as modified by Marlia et al. discloses the assembly wherein the frame is fixed to the grip member (Fig.5; Bingle et al.)and wherein a contact zone between the frame and the grip member is sealed (c.7, l24-32; Bingle et al.) by laser welding (process) to form a waterproof seal.
Note: laser wielding is a process, recitation of said process renders the claim product by process which can be given little to no patentable weight.
Claim 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bingle et al. (US 9,696,839).
Regarding claim 30, Bingle et al. discloses a vehicle door comprising: the assembly for opening, closing, or opening and closing a vehicle door (abstract line 1);
Note: a belt line and window glass do not appear to be elements of an assembly for opening (abstract), closing, or opening and closing a vehicle door.
Bingle et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a discussion of a belt line and a window glass extending from the belt line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a belt line; and a window glass (abstract, vehicle door, not shown are known to have glass) extending from the belt line since it is l known in the art that vehicles are well known have window glass arrangement extending from a belt line.
Regarding claim 31, Bingle et al. discloses the vehicle door, wherein the grip member (10) is attached to the external side of the vehicle door (c.3, l. 15-19), at the belt line.
Double Patenting
Claim 15 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of Application No. 18/523,505. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. US 18/523,505 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed structure is identical: the grip member, A base, a gripping part, an electronic subassembly, a switch contact area are all present in both applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 17 September 2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s argument, page 8, line 8 thru page 10, line 4; regarding spatial arrangement see (c.3,l.17-20; Bingle et al.). Position of the vehicle door control handle is explicitly discussed. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument, page 10, line 7 thru page 10 line 21; the argument concerning direction without first establishing a frame of reference is essentially random as direction is a relative concept. The argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument, page 11, line 12; in order to accomplish the function argued by the applicant of a handle, a structure must merely physically exist. Bingel et al. certainly describes structure which is intended for handle use to facilitate opening and closing of a door. Mere location of known elements is a matter of obviousness and is not a basis for a patentable distinction over the prior art of Bingle et al. Applicant’s assertion of what is non-obvious is an opinion rather than evidence as to why the claimed invention describes a patentably distinction. The applicant’s argument is unpersuasive
Applicant’s argument, page 12, line 15; concerning double patenting all of the same structure is presently claimed in both applications. Applicant has failed to identify a patentable distinction between application 18/523,505 and instant application US 18/539,384. The claimed structure is the same. Mere position of an element is not a patentable distinction. Especially since the applicant has failed to first establish a frame of reference. Recitation of direction without a frame of reference is essentially random. Applicant’s argument requesting double patenting be withdrawn is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675