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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan et al., WO 2020/120398 A1, in view of Kerr, III, US 2015/0069764 A1.
Claim 1: Conan discloses a handle assembly comprising:
a handle body (2) having a surface facing the base and a surface facing away from a door panel (Fig. 3);
a cover plate (5) rotatably provided on the handle body (Fig. 2), wherein the cover plate covers the surface of the handle body facing away from the door panel (Figs. 1-2);
a trigger device (10) provided between the handle body and the cover plate (Figs. 1-2), and being configured to trigger by a relative motion between the cover plate and the handle body (Fig. 3; [0049]);
wherein the handle body and the cover plate are rotatable together relative to the door panel (the cover plate is attached to the handle body and they rotate together about the pivot joint 17).
Conan discloses the handle body mounted on a door panel, but does not explicitly disclose a base. However, it is well known in the art to provide a base for mounting a handle assembly on a vehicle door. Kerr teaches a handle assembly comprising a base (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a base, as taught by Kerr, with the handle assembly disclosed by Conan in order to mount and support the handle body and cover plate on the door (Kerr [0021]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the elements by known methods and recognize the results were predictable, namely the handle assembly comprising a base, wherein the handle body has as surface facing away from the base and the cover plate covers the surface facing away from the base, and wherein the handle body and cover plate are rotatable together relative to the base.
Claim 2: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein:
the handle body is rotatable about a first axis relative to the base (Conan [0017]); and
the cover plate is rotatable relative to the base about a second axis (Conan [0034]) different form the first axis (Conan Fig. 1), and is rotatable together with the handle body about the first axis (the cover plate is attached to the handle body and rotates therewith about the first axis).
Claim 3: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 2, wherein: the handle body and the cover plate are configured such that: the handle body and the cover plate together rotate about the first axis relative to the base when an end portion of the base away from the first axis is subjected to an unexpected impact (Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the same structure so it would function in the same manner upon an unexpected impact to an end portion of the base; Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle body and cover plate are structured to rotate together relative to the base and would still rotate together relative to the base upon an impact to the base).
Claim 4: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 2, wherein: the first axis and the second axis are provided in parallel (Conan Fig. 2).
Claim 5: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 2, wherein: the trigger device is provided between the first axis and the second axis (Conan Fig. 2).
Claim 6: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein:
the cover plate is rotatable relative to the handle body between a first cover plate angle and a second cover plate angle (Conan Fig. 3, below, depicts the cover plate rotatable between a first angle at the “rest position 20” and a second angle at the “activation position 21”), and the cover plate triggers the trigger device when the cover plate and the handle body form the second cover plate angle (Conan [0049]; Fig. 3, below, is annotated to show the cover plate and handle body forming a second cover plate angle with solid lines); and
PNG
media_image1.png
328
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the handle assembly further comprises a cover plate reset component (Conan 13) configured to move the cover plate relative to the handle body from the second cover plate angle to the first cover plate angle (Conan [0028]), and the first cover plate angle is smaller than the second cover plate angle (Conan Fig. 3, above, shows the cover plate and handle body form a first cover plate angle (with dashed line) smaller than the second cover plate angle (with solid line)).
Claim 7: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein:
the handle body is rotatable relative to the base between a first handle angle and a second handle angle, the first handle angle is smaller than the second handle angle (depicted in Conan Fig. 3, annotated above); and
the handle assembly further comprises a handle body reset component (Conan 13) configured to move the handle body from the second handle angle towards the first handle angle (Conan [0028]).
Claim 8: Conan, as modified by Kerr, teaches a vehicle (Conan 40), comprising:
a vehicle body (Conan 30); and
the handle assembly according to claim 1 (shown above with respect to claim 1), the base being connected to the vehicle body (Kerr [0007]).
Claim 10: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein:
the handle body is rotatable about a first axis relative to the base (Conan [0017]), and the cover plate is rotatable relative to the base about a second axis different form the first axis (Conan [0034]); and
the first axis and the second axis are provided substantially in a vertical direction (one skilled in the art would understand the first and second axes are substantially in a vertical direction when the handle assembly is mounted on the door (see Conan Fig. 1, [0017])).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan, in view of Kerr, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Xi et al., CN 108166868 A.
Claim 9: Conan, in view of Kerr, teaches the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the handle body has a closed position and an open position (Conan [0017]), and is rotatable relative to the base between the closed position and the open position (Conan [0017]).
Xi teaches an external body sheet metal (900) being connected to a vehicle body ([0023]); and
the external body sheet metal and a handle assembly (Fig. 6) are configured such that: when a handle body is in the closed position, an outer surface of the cover plate (400) is flush with the external body sheet metal (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an external body sheet metal, as taught by Xin, connected to the vehicle body taught by Conan, in view of Kerr, and configure the handle assembly such that when the handle body is in the closed position, the outer surface of the cover plate is flush with the external body sheet metal, as taught by Xin, in order to reduce wind resistance and fuel consumption (Xin [0023]) and improve aesthetics (Xin [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675