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 .
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.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are 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.
The term “substantial length” in claims 1, 11, 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial length” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantial length” is indefinite as it does not define what “length of the body” entails. For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting the “substantial length” to be the length seen in the rejection below.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by She (US 8297674 B2).
Re Claim 1, She discloses: An assist handle assembly for a vehicle (Summary), the assist handle assembly comprising:
a body (Fig. 7: 62) configured to be connected to a structural support (Fig. 7: 16) on the vehicle; and
a removable cover (Fig. 7: 74 & 76) configured to engage and cover the body, the removable cover overlaying the body and extending along a substantial length of the body (see annotated Fig. 7; as mentioned in the 112(b) rejection above, the term “substantial length” does not specify what portion of the body is considered as “substantial length”), wherein the removable cover is configured to be removed from the body and replaced with another removable cover (a damaged cover can be replaced by an identical replacement cover due to the cover being removable).
Re Claim 4, She discloses:
the body comprises a locator pin (see annotated Fig. 7 below) configured to engage the structural support in the vehicle and at least one fastener (Fig. 7: 72) to fasten the body onto the support structure.
Re Claim 9, She discloses:
the assist handle assembly is configured to be installed in a passenger compartment of the vehicle (Col. 2, lns. 45-49).
Re Claim 10, She discloses:
the assist handle assembly is configured to be installed onto a support pillar (Fig. 7: 16) in the interior of the vehicle (Col. 2, lns. 45-54).
Re Claim 20, She discloses:
A vehicle comprising:
an interior cabin (Col. 2, lns. 45-46);
a support structure within the interior cabin (Col. 2, lns. 45-49); and
an assist handle assembly installed in the interior cabin of the vehicle, the assist handle assembly comprising (Col. 2, lns. 45-49):
a rigid body (Fig. 7: 62) configured to be connected to a structural support (Fig. 7: 16) on the vehicle; and
a removable cover (Fig. 7: 74 & 76) configured to engage and cover the rigid body, the removable cover overlaying the body and extending along a substantial length of the body (see annotated Fig. 7; and as mentioned in the 112(b) rejection above, the term “substantial length” does not specify what portion of the body is considered as “substantial length”), wherein the removable cover is configured to be removed from the rigid body and replaced with another removable cover (a damaged cover can be replaced by an identical replacement cover due to the cover being removable).
PNG
media_image1.png
872
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of She (US 8297674 B2)
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over She (US 8297674 B2) in view of Ottaway et al. (WO 2023048947 A1).
Re Claims 2-3, She discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as applied above, except for the body comprising a honeycomb structure and the honeycomb structure comprising a transversal honeycomb structure.
Ottaway et al. discloses that the body comprises a transversal honeycomb structure (Para 0028; also see annotated Fig. 3 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a body of an assist handle assembly, as disclosed by She, to comprise a honeycomb structure, as taught by Ottaway et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide energy absorption capabilities in response to an inadvertent contact of a passenger's body. Having the geometry of a honeycomb structure would allow a force imparted to the handle to distribute the force through the transversal gaps such that it would break or deform, thereby absorbing the energy associated with the force.
PNG
media_image2.png
292
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Ottaway et al. (WO 2023048947 A1)
Claims 5, 11, 14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over She (US 8297674 B2) in view of Forrest (US 8108956 B2).
Re Claim 5, She discloses all the limitations of the claim as applied above, except that the cover is retained on the body with one or more fasteners. She discloses that the cover is removable but not the method of retaining the cover on the body.
Forrest, however, discloses one or more fasteners to retain the cover on the body (see annotated Fig. 2 and 3A below). The cover is retained on the body using snap fits as seen in the figures below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She, by using fasteners to retain the cover on the body, as taught by Forrest, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that it would be easy to remove the cover to access the interior of the assist handle body.
PNG
media_image3.png
301
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Forrest (US 8108956 B2)
PNG
media_image4.png
269
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3A of Forrest (US 8108956 B2)
Re Claim 11, She discloses all of the limitations of the claim (as seen in the 102 rejection of Claim 1), except the portion regarding the one or more removable fasteners configured to retain the cover on the body.
As seen above, Forrest discloses one or more removable fasteners (Fig. 2, 46; adding 46 makes the cover removable from the body) to retain the cover on the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an assist handle assembly, as disclosed by She, by using removable fasteners to retain the cover on the body, as taught by Forrest, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that it would hold the cover on the body firmly while also allowing the cover to be removed from the body.
Re Claim 14, She discloses most of the limitations of the independent claim 11 and Forrest discloses the rest of the limitations of the claim, as applied above. She further discloses the body comprises a locator pin configured to engage the structural support in the motor vehicle (see annotated Fig. 7).
Re Claim 18, She and Forrest disclose all the limitations of the independent claim 11, as applied above, and She further discloses the assist handle assembly is configured to be installed in a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle (She: Col. 2, Ins 45-49).
Re Claim 19, She and Forrest disclose all the limitations of the independent claim 11, as applied above, and She further discloses the assist handle assembly is configured to be installed onto a support pillar in the interior of the motor vehicle (She: Col. 2, Ins 45-54).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over She (US 8297674 B2) in view of Ripley et al. (US 2009/0195035 A1).
Re Claim 6, She discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as applied above, except the cover comprising rubber. Ripley et al. discloses the cover of the handle comprised of rubber (Para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She, to utilize a softer material such as rubber, as taught by Ripley et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide comfort to the user gripping the assist handle (Para [0041]).
Re Claim 7, She discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except the cover further comprising a rigid inner polymeric material.
Ripley et al. discloses the cover of a handle (Fig.7: 44) comprised of suitable structural material such as plastic (which may be a rigid polymeric material) (Para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She, to utilize a rigid inner polymeric material such as plastic, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the plastic material would provide a suitable structure to the handle.
Re Claim 8, She discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except the rubber may be over molded onto the rigid inner polymeric material.
Ripley et al. discloses that a softer material such as rubber may be over molded onto the plastic (rigid polymeric material) (Para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She, to be formed out of rigid inner polymer material such as plastic and over molded by rubber, as taught by Ripley et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide comfort to the user gripping the assist handle while also allowing limited movement of the handle in response to an impact.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over She (US 8297674 B2) and Forrest (US 8108956 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ottaway et al. (WO 2023048947 A1).
Re Claim 12-13, She discloses all the limitations of Claim 11 (as seen in the previous paragraphs), while Forrest discloses the removable fasteners configured to retain the cover on the body, but neither She nor Forrest discloses regarding the body comprising a transversal honeycomb structure.
Ottaway et al. (as seen in the above paragraphs) discloses that the body comprises a transversal honeycomb structure (Para [0028], also see Figure 3 from Ottaway et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a body of an assist handle assembly, as disclosed by She and Forrest, to comprise a honeycomb structure, as taught by Ottaway et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide energy absorption capabilities in response to an inadvertent contact of a passenger's body. Having the geometry of a honeycomb structure would allow a force imparted to the handle to distribute the force through the transversal gaps such that it would break or deform, thereby absorbing the energy associated with the force.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over She (US 8297674 B2) and Forrest (US 8108956 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ripley et al. (US 2009/0195035 A1).
Re Claim 15, She and Forrest disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as applied above, except the cover comprising rubber.
Ripley et al. discloses the cover of the handle comprised of rubber (Para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She and Forrest, to utilize a softer material such as rubber, as taught by Ripley et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide comfort to the user gripping the assist handle (Para [0041]).
Re Claim 16, She and Forrest disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as applied above, except the cover further comprising a rigid inner polymeric material.
Ripley et al. discloses the cover of the handle comprised of suitable structural material such as plastic (which may be a rigid polymeric material) (Para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She, to utilize a rigid inner polymeric material such as plastic, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the plastic material would provide a suitable structure to the handle.
Re Claim 17, She and Forrest disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as applied above, except the rubber may be over molded onto the rigid inner polymeric material.
Ripley et al. discloses that a softer material such as rubber may be over molded onto the plastic (rigid polymeric material) (Para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of the assist handle, as disclosed by She, to be formed out of rigid inner polymer material such as plastic and over molded by rubber, as taught by Ripley et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide comfort to the user gripping the assist handle while also allowing limited movement of the handle in response to an impact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments which constituted the amendment to the claim language were considered but was not persuasive enough to reverse the rejection. The claims that were amended were Claims 1, 11, and 20. The claim language “the removable cover overlaying the body and extending along a substantial length of the body” was determined to be indefinite as it does not specify or indicate the length being referred to. The definition of substantial provided in the specification does not indicate the length of the cover or the body and therefore cannot be used to determine the scope of the claim language. Thus, the primary reference, She, still reads on the amended independent claims in combination with the other references, Ottaway, Forrest, and Ripley, also teach the original dependent claims which depend on the said independent claims.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments towards the reasoning that a damaged cover can be replaced by an identical replacement cover being speculative and unsupported by any disclosure in She, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While She does not disclose the reasoning exactly, the parts 74 and 76 are removable (as disclosed by She in Para 0026), and thus, can be removed when needed.
By way of the above response, the Examiner submits that the claims, as amended, are not fully persuasive and the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 103 still stands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose an assist handle assembly:
Dry et al. (US 20050079336 A1) discloses a grab handle that has a structural core along with a hard or soft plastic shell or skin which can be fixed onto pillars or door panels.
Morozini De Lira (US 10737637 B2) discloses a door handle with a cover.
Mizuta (US 6523879 B2) discloses a detachable assist handle that has a rubberized coating on a metal body and can be configured to be installed to the front frame member within the cabin frame of the vehicle.
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 JASMINE J THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASMINE JAMES THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 22, 2026
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
