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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 11/27/25.
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) 12-15 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0417565 to Wiesenbach in view of JP 2019027076 to Ono et al (Ono), JPH01182478 to Yokoyama and US Pat Application Publication No 20200325708 to Tylla.
PNG
media_image1.png
665
987
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Wiesenbach discloses a vehicle door handle assembly that comprises a bowl (15) disposed in an opening of a door panel and defining a recess inside.
First, Wiesenbach fails to disclose that an electric door latch switch is disposed in the recess. Wiesenbach discloses a manual lever (12) for manual operation of a latch.
PNG
media_image2.png
683
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ono teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a vehicle handle assembly defining a bowl component (13) defining a recess, wherein the handle assembly manually operates a latch by means of a lever (5, 7) or by an electric door latch switch (4) that is disposed in a recess of the bowl for electrically operating a latch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle assembly described by Wiesenbach with an electric door latch switch, as taught by Ono, in order to allow the user to either manually or electrically operate a latch.
Second, Wiesenbach fails to disclose that the bowl is composed of two complementary plastic parts which are each obtained in a separate molding process.
Wiesenbach discloses that the bowl is composed of a lower-part bowl (15) that is shaped like a bent pipe and designed to be fastened to the door panel and a sealing element (34) that covers an upper part of the bowl and defines a concave shape reception wall capable of serving as an abutment for fingertips when inserted inside the recess.
PNG
media_image3.png
711
1515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yokoyama teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle assembly that comprises a bowl defined by two complementary plastic parts (10 and 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
497
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Tylla teaches that it is well known in the art to manufacture a shell (14) of a vehicle handle assembly by means of a molding process (par 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide to provide the bowl described by Wiesenbach with an upper bowl, as taught by Yokoyama, in order to provide a more rigid structure.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the bowls with a molding process, as taught by Tylla, in order to use a low-cost manufacturing method.
Also, in combination, since the parts are different in shape, they are going to be manufactured in separate molding process.
As to claim 13, Wiesenbach illustrates that the bent pipe forming the lower-part bowl (15) is a funnel-shaped.
As to claim 14, Wiesenbach illustrates that the bent pipe forming the lower-part bowl has an oblong-shaped cross-section.
As to claim 15, Wiesenbach illustrates that the concave-shaped upper-part (38) comprises an oblong-shaped hole inside which a part of said electric door latch switch is disposed.
PNG
media_image5.png
396
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23, Wiesenbach illustrates that an upper end opening of the bent pipe of the lower part bowl and a lower end opening of the bent pipe of the lower part bowl do not face each other.
As to claim 24, Wiesenbach illustrates that an inclination angle between planes comprising edges of the lower end opening and the upper end opening is 120°.
As to claim 25, Wiesenbach illustrates that the upper end opening is smaller than the lower end opening.
Claim(s) 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0417565 to Wiesenbach in view of JP 2019027076 to Ono et al (Ono), JPH01182478 to Yokoyama, US Pat Application Publication No 20200325708 to Tylla and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20160115980 to Estrada et al (Estrada).
As to claim 16, Wiesenbach, as modified by Ono, Yokoyama and Tylla, fails to disclose that the upper- and lower-part bowls are connected by means of a plastic tongue inserted into an opening, forming together a clipping element.
PNG
media_image6.png
568
1503
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Estrada teaches that it is well known in the art to secure an upper part (12) to a lower part (14) by means of a plastic tongue (20) inserted into an opening (at 18), forming together a clipping element. The elements can be positioned in either configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide to the bowl part described by Wiesenbach, as modified by Ono, Yokoyama and Tylla, with a clipping element, as taught by Estrada, in order easily connect and secure the bowls together.
As to claim 17, Estrada teaches that the clipping element can have any desired number of tongues/openings.
As to claims 18 and 19, Wiesenbach, as modified by Ono, Yokoyama and Tylla, fails to disclose that one of the lower-part bowl and the concave-shaped upper-part bowl of the bowl includes a longitudinal protrusion that is configured to be inserted into a rail that is placed on another one of complementary parts of the bowl, and the longitudinal protrusion and the rail form a slideway that joins both the lower-part bowl and the concave-shaped upper-part bowl of the bowl together.
Estrada teaches that it is well known in the art to provide one of the parts with a longitudinal protrusion (32) that is configured to be inserted into a rail (at 28) that is placed in the other part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide to the bowl part described by Wiesenbach, as modified by Ono, Yokoyama and Tylla, with a rail/protrusion connection, as taught by Estrada, in order to guide and aid in securing the parts together.
As to claims 20 and 21, Estrada teaches that it is well known in the art to use a laser welding or an ultrasonic welding to permanently connect the parts together (par 6).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0417565 to Wiesenbach in view of JP 2019027076 to Ono et al (Ono), JPH01182478 to Yokoyama, US Pat Application Publication No 20200325708 to Tylla and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20060237974 to Hamm et al (Hamm).
Wiesenbach, as modified by Ono, Yokoyama and Tylla, fails to disclose that the lower and upper bowl parts are permanently assembled to each other using glue.
Hamm teaches that it is well known in the art to permanently assembled an upper and a lower part of a housing by to each other by using glue (par 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the upper and lower bowl parts described by Wiesenbach, as modified by Ono, Yokoyama and Tylla, by using glue, as taught by Hamm, in order to permanently assembled the parts together.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Wiesenbach element 34 is not a bowl, that instead is a flexible sealing element.
As described by Wiesenbach, element 34 is a sealing element that comprises a bowl-shaped section 36 ending in a channel piece 38.
Applicant is under the impression that because it says, “sealing element”, the element is not rigid. As clearly shown in figs 6-8, element 34 is shown as a rigid one-piece member.
Applicant further argues that the modification is a hindsight modification because “replacing the sea 34 with a rigid shell” would eliminate the watertight barrier expressly required by Wiesenbach, as shown in the abstract?
Here is the abstract:
PNG
media_image7.png
366
839
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As shown, Wiesenbach is silent about anything related to water resistance. So, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant finally argues that based on the teachings of Yokohama, no one having ordinary skill in the art will not obtain the shaped claimed.
As mentioned above, Yokoyama is used to teach that it is well known in the art to provide a bowl defined by two parts.
Applicant is reminded that separate elements fastened together, in place of a one-piece construction, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
As to new claims 23-25, a rejection has been made on the record.
Since no argument is persuasive and the examiner will maintain this position, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can file an appeal brief as his next response to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
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 CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (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 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
November 25, 2025
Prosecution Insights