DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by FR2761101.
Regarding claim 1, FR2761101 discloses a handle for a vehicle door (Figures 1-5), [said handle being configured to be mounted on the inner face of said door]* and comprising a main portion (See Figures 1-5, considered at least elements 3, 6, and 7) [configured to be grasped by a user for pushing or pulling the door between an open position and a closed position relative to a vehicle frame]*, wherein the door is held in said closed position by a latch (at least elements 10, 11, 12), said handle main portion substantially extending along an axis (considered central axis of element 3), wherein the handle further comprises a lever (at least elements 5, 9a, 9b, and 8, See Figures 1-2) for releasing the latch, the lever being pivotally mounted on the main portion about a pivoting axis which is substantially parallel to the main portion axis, between a rest position and a release position, [the lever thus being pivotable by the user while grasping the main portion of the handle]*, wherein, in the rest position, the lever is arranged substantially flush with a wall of the main portion (See Figure 1 below); and wherein, in the release position, the lever protrudes outwardly from a wall of the main portion (See Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Flush)][AltContent: textbox (Protrudes)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: FR2761101, Figure 1 (Examiner Amended))]
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a handle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the handle disclosed by FR2761101 is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 6, FR2761101 discloses wherein the lever is mounted on an outer side of the main portion (See Figures 1-5),
Regarding claim 7, FR2761101 discloses a biasing member for biasing the lever towards its rest position. Examiner notes that element 5 is necessarily biased to the rest position via a “biasing member” when element 5 is not being actuated. This functionality is necessary for the assembly of FR2761101 to function in the manner disclosed.
Regarding claim 8, FR2761101 discloses wherein the lever comprises: a main wall (See Figure 1, considered middle portion of element 5); and an arm (See Figure 2, considered lower portion of element 5, including element 9b, extending between lower portion of element 3 and element 6) extending from the main wall towards an internal area of the handle main portion, the arm having an attachment portion for attaching an actuator (element 8) of the door latch.
Regarding claim 10, FR2761101 discloses wherein the lever comprises two opposite lugs (elements 9a and 9b), each lug being configured to be engaged into a notch of the handle main portion, so as to form the pivoting axis (See Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, FR2761101 discloses a door for a vehicle, comprising: a door body (See at least Figure 3); a door trim (area of element 1) secured to the door body on the inner face thereof; a latch (at least elements 10-12) attached to the door body, and [configured for holding the door in a closed position relative to a frame of the vehicle]*; and the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle main portion is secured to the door body and the lever is attached to an actuator of the latch.
Regarding claim 12, FR2761101 discloses wherein the door trim comprises a recess (element 14), the handle being substantially housed in the recess.
Regarding claim 13, FR2761101 discloses wherein the axis of the main portion is substantially longitudinal, with reference to the vehicle longitudinal direction in the mounted position of the door.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, FR2761101 discloses a vehicle, in particular an industrial vehicle such as a truck, comprising a frame and the door of claim 11, the door being pivotally mounted on the vehicle frame between an open and a closed position, wherein in the closed position, [the door can be in a latched state or in an unlatched state]*. Examiner notes that, as best understood, “in particular an industrial vehicle such as a truck” is simply a structural example and not required in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP2009041233.
Regarding claim 1, JP2009041233 discloses a handle (considered at least elements 2, 3 and area of 11A, 11B, 11C) for a vehicle door (See Figure 1), said handle being [configured to be mounted on the inner face of said door]* and comprising a main portion (at least elements 3 and 11A) [configured to be grasped by a user (element 3 is grasped by a user) for pushing or pulling the door between an open position and a closed position relative to a vehicle frame]*, wherein the door is held in said closed position by a latch (at least element 54), said handle main portion substantially extending along an axis (Examiner notes that the handle of JP2009041233 is a three-dimensional object that is considered to “substantially extend” along multiple axes), wherein the handle further comprises a lever (at least elements 2, 2A, and 13) for releasing the latch, the lever being pivotally mounted on the main portion about a pivoting axis which is substantially parallel to the main portion axis, between a rest position and a release position, [the lever thus being pivotable by the user while grasping the main portion of the handle (See at least Figures 2-4)]*, wherein, in the rest position, the lever is arranged substantially flush with a wall of the main portion (See Figure 2 below, at least a surface of element 2 is “substantially flush” with a surface of the main portion); and wherein, in the release position, the lever protrudes outwardly from a wall of the main portion (See at least Figures 2-3, element 2 is shown to protrude beyond the left and right sides of element 3, as well as protruding from the recess of element 11A).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Substantially Flush)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: JP2009041233, Figure 4 (Examiner Amended))]
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a handle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the handle disclosed by JP2009041233 is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 4, JP2009041233 discloses wherein the handle main portion has a peripheral wall which comprises an opening (See at least Figure 3, considered “peripheral wall” of element 11A), the lever being mounted in the opening.
Regarding claim 5, JP2009041233 discloses wherein, in the rest position, the lever extends in the opening while leaving a gap between the lever and the peripheral wall which surrounds the opening, [for allowing the user to insert his fingers in the gap for moving the lever to the release position (See Figures 2-4)]*.
Regarding claim 6 JP2009041233 discloses wherein the lever is mounted on an outer side of the main portion (element 2 is mounted on the “outer side” of element 11B).
Regarding claim 7, JP2009041233 discloses further comprising a biasing member for biasing the lever towards its rest position (See Applicants provided translation, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, JP2009041233 discloses wherein the lever comprises: a main wall (Figures 2-3, portion of element 2 directly connected to element 2A); and an arm (element 2A) extending from the main wall towards an internal area of the handle main portion, the arm having an attachment portion for attaching an actuator of the door latch (Examiner notes that elements 2 and 2A are necessarily “attached” to the locking system (element 50) for the vehicle door of JP2009041233 to function as intended, since operation of element 2 actuates the locking system for opening of the door).
Regarding claim 10, JP2009041233 discloses wherein the lever comprises two opposite lugs (Figure 4, upper and lower ends of element 13), [each lug being configured to be engaged into a notch (element 11C) of the handle main portion, so as to form the pivoting axis]*.
Regarding claim 11, JP2009041233 discloses a door for a vehicle, comprising: a door body; a door trim (element 11) secured to the door body on the inner face thereof; a latch (at least element 54) attached to the door body, and [configured for holding the door in a closed position relative to a frame of the vehicle]*; and the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle main portion is secured to the door body and the lever is attached to an actuator (at least elements 52 and 53) of the latch.
Regarding claim 12, JP2009041233 discloses wherein the door trim comprises a recess (element 11A), the handle being substantially housed in the recess. Examiner notes that at least elements 11C, 13, 2A, and 2 are “substantially housed in the recess”).
Regarding claim 13, JP2009041233 discloses wherein the axis of the main portion is substantially longitudinal, with reference to the vehicle longitudinal direction in the mounted position of the door (See at least Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, JP2009041233 discloses a vehicle, in particular an industrial vehicle such as a truck, comprising a frame and the door of claim 11, the door being pivotally mounted on the vehicle frame between an open and a closed position, [wherein in the closed position, the door can be in a latched state or in an unlatched state]*.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009041233 in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0084354) (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding claim 14, Examiner believes that JP2009041233 discloses wherein the latch actuator comprises a cable (element 53) which is attached to the lever so that when the lever is pivoted from its rest position to its release position, the lever pulls the cable. Examiner believes that element 53 is clearly a cable. However, if Applicant disagrees, since element 53 is described throughout JP2009041233 as a “link member” and not a “cable”, Examiner notes that Lee teaches that it is known in the art to configure a vehicle door handle and latch system that features a cable (element 30) connecting an actuating handle (element 20) to a latch (element 70), such that actuation of the handle will operate the latch and unlock the vehicle door. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure element 53 of JP2009041233 such that it is a cable, since cables are extremely well known in the art for providing linking functionality between vehicle latches and handles, and since a cable would function as intended for the purpose of JP2009041233. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Muntada fails to disclose a lever integrated with the main handle portion such that the lever moves between a rest position flush with a wall of the main portion and a release position protruding from the wall of the main portion”. Examiner notes that this argument is unclear, since claim 1 does not require “a rest position flush with a wall of the main portion and a release position protruding from the wall of the main portion”, but rather, the claim recites “wherein, in the rest position, the lever is arranged substantially flush with a wall of the main portion; and wherein, in the release position, the lever protrudes outwardly from a wall of the main portion”. The claim as written does not require the multiple recitations of “a wall” to be the same wall.
Regarding the argument “Yoshida fails to disclose a level integrated with the main handle portion such that the lever moves between a rest position flush with a wall of the main portion and a release position protruding from the wall of the main portion”. Examiner notes that this argument is unclear, since claim 1 does not require “a rest position flush with a wall of the main portion and a release position protruding from the wall of the main portion”, but rather “wherein, in the rest position, the lever is arranged substantially flush with a wall of the main portion; and wherein, in the release position, the lever protrudes outwardly from a wall of the main portion”. The claim as written does not require the multiple recitations of “a wall” to be the same wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights