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 12/18/25.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 requires that the door operation assembly comprises a latch. At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since the assembly is a door “operation” assembly, so how an assembly that is intended to operate can comprises the door latch, which is intended to be operated by the assembly.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the assembly used to operate the door latch. Correction is required.
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) 1, 2 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 6,698,262 to Wittwer in view of US Pat No 10,345,926 to Brown et al (Brown).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
1451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wittwer discloses a concealed door handle assembly that comprises a housing (20); a door lock access (35) mounted on the housing, wherein the door lock access is selectively accessible.
The assembly further comprises a door operating assembly that comprises a locking mechanism, which includes the door lock access; a latching mechanism (40) and a door handle (10) pivotably connected to the housing, wherein the door handle is a door lock access panel pivoted on the housing about a door handle axis parallel to a plane of the housing for the door handle.
The door handle is moved between a flush position (10.1), a deployed position (10.2) and an actuating position (10.3, 10.4).
In a flush position, the door handle (10) conceals the door lock access (35) to restrict the locking action and in a deployed position, the door handle un-conceals access to the door lock access.
However, Wittwer fails to disclose that the door handle is operatively coupled to a push-push mechanism to move the door handle from the flushed position into the deployed position, to allow access to the door lock access to initiate locking action and to move the lockable push-push mechanism to released position.
Wittwer discloses that the handle is automatically moved by a sensing system operatively connected to a motor that moves the handle from the flushed position into the deployed position, to allow access to the door lock access. Also, Wittwer discloses that during an electrical emergency, the door lock is operated by means of the lock cylinder 35 but doesn’t establish how the handle is moved in order to get access to it.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brown teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electrical mechanism (12) to move a handle (10) from a flushed position to a deployed position, or a mechanical mechanism that comprises a push-push mechanism (36) operatively mounted on a housing (formed by 38).
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 assembly described by Wittwer with a push-push mechanism, as taught by Brown, in order to move the handle in the event of power failure.
As to claim 2, Wittwer discloses that the door lock access (35) is a secondary door lock access and is one of a key-receiving portion, a biometric sensor, and a door request sensor.
As to claim 8, Brown teaches that when the door handle in the unlatched position causes the lockable push-push mechanism to be recharged to move to the charged condition (so it can create the push-push action again).
As to claim 9, Wittwer discloses that the door handle (10) is pivotably connected to the housing (20) through a pivot pin (11).
As to claim 10, Brown teaches that the door handle (10) is mechanically operated (by the push-push mechanism 36).
As to claim 11, Wittwer discloses that the door handle (10) is operable by an electric actuator, wherein the electric actuator is an electric motor (31).
As to claim 12, Wittwer discloses that the door operation assembly is electronically operated.
As to claim 13, Wittwer discloses that the door operation assembly is operable by a motor (31) coupled to a controller (not shown).
As to claim 14, Wittwer discloses that the door operation assembly is mechanically operated (when the handle is moved to the actuation position, 10.4).
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 6,698,262 to Wittwer in view of US Pat No 10,345,926 to Brown et al (Brown) and further in view of US Pat No 4,580,821 to Genord et al (Genord) and US Pat No 11,499,352 to Guerin.
As to claim 3, Wittwer discloses that the handle of the door operation assembly is coupled to a latch (40). Wittwer discloses a door lock access (35).
However, Wittwer, as modified by Brown, fails to disclose that the door operation assembly comprises a link rod and a de-latch cable.
PNG
media_image3.png
596
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the door handle is operatively connected to the door latch (40) by means of a link assembly (41, 45) but doesn’t show the connection between the door lock access (35) to the door latch.
PNG
media_image4.png
478
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Genord teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a door handle assembly that comprises a door handle (56) that is operatively connected to door latch (not shown, by means of rod 136) and a door lock access (122) that is connected to the door latch by means of a link rod (126).
PNG
media_image5.png
687
702
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Guerin teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a delatch cable (19) that operatively connects the door handle (1) to a door latch (20) and a door lock access (38) that connects to the door locking mechanism to lock the latch.
First, 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 door handle assembly described by Wittwer to provide a link rod to connect the door lock access to the door, as taught by Genord, in order to provide a solid member to transmit the locking/unlocking function to the door latch.
Second, 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 door handle assembly described by Wittwer with a delatch cable to operatively connect the door handle to the door latch, as taught by Guerin, in order to provide a simple member to perform the unlatching of the latch when the handle is operated.
As to claim 4, Wittwer, as modified by Genord, teaches that the locking mechanism comprises an operation of locking and unlocking by transfer of motion between a latch and a link rod (when the lock 122 is operated).
As to claim 5, Wittwer, as modified by Guerin, teaches that the latching mechanism comprises an operation of latching and unlatching by transfer of motion between a latch and a de-latch cable.
As to claim 6, Wittwer, as modified by Genord, teaches that the locking action is initiated through the door lock access, wherein a link rod operably connected to the door lock access transfers motion from the door lock access to a latch to initiate the locking action.
As to claim 7, Wittwer, as modified by Guerin, teaches that latching action is initiated through the door handle, wherein a de-latch cable is operably connected to the door handle to transfer motion of movement of the door handle to the unlatch position to the latch to initiate the latching action.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection to the specification, the current amendment overcomes the previous issues.
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 1, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 3, the argument is not persuasive. The door operation assembly is the assembly to operate the door. This assembly is operatively connected between the handle and the latch, so as to operate the latch and the door. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the applicant argues that the combination fails to disclose “a lockable push-push mechanism operably mounted on the housing”.
Wittwer discloses a housing (20) where the handle is mounted on. Brown teaches a push-push mechanism (36) that is used to operate the handle in the event of power failure. The push-push mechanism is operably mounted on a housing formed by the support structure (38) and with the handle.
Adding the teachings of Brown into the device described by Wittwer, will position the push-push mechanism behind the handle, so as to be “operably mounted on the housing”.
Applicant further argues that Wittwer does not provide sufficient space to incorporate the mechanism described by Brown. First, the drawings are not at scale. Second, Wittwer discloses that there is a space (32), so any sized push-push mechanism can be provided in that space.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Since no argument is persuasive and the examiner is maintaining the position shown above, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can file an appeal brief as his next response to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution is closed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
March 3, 2026