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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 June 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velicanin et al., WO 2020/094270 A1 [hereinafter: WO-2020], in view of Velicanin, US 2021/0172218 A1 [hereinafter: US-2021].
Claim 1: WO-2020 discloses a handle assembly (3), comprising:
a base (8);
a handle body (7) having an interior-facing surface facing the base and an exterior-facing surface facing away from the base (Figs. 4-6 illustrate an interior facing surface and an exterior facing surface);
a cover plate (4) rotatably provided on the handle body (Fig. 8), wherein the cover plate covers all or substantially all of the exterior-facing surface of the handle body (Fig. 6); and
a trigger device (18) provided between the handle body and the cover plate (Fig. 8), and being configured to trigger by a relative motion between the cover plate and the handle body ([0033], [0042]).
WO-2020 suggests a pulling motion to open the door lock, but does not disclose details of the arrangement and is silent to wherein the handle body and the cover plate are rotatable together relative to the base.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. US-2021 teaches a handle assembly comprising a handle body (17) and a cover plate (16) that are rotatable together relative to a base (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the handle assembly disclosed by WO-2020 to be structured with the handle body and cover plate rotatable together relative to the base, as taught by US-2021. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a handle assembly comprising a base, a handle body, a cover plate rotatably provided on the handle body, and wherein the handle body and cover plate are rotatable together relative to the base for opening the vehicle door.
Claim 2: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein:
the handle body is rotatable about a first axis (US-2021 15) relative to the base (as modified, the handle body is rotatable about a first axis arranged near the bottom of the handle body); and
the cover plate is rotatable relative to the base about a second axis (WO-2020 14) different from the first axis (as modified, the second axis is arranged near the top of the handle body, separate from the first axis), and is rotatable together with the handle body about the first axis (US-2021 [0060]).
Claim 4: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 2, wherein:
the first axis and the second axis are provided in parallel (as modified, the axes extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the handle and are parallel).
Claim 5: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 2, wherein:
the trigger device is provided between the first axis and the second axis (WO-2020 depicts the trigger device positioned below the second axis; as modified, the trigger device is positioned above the first axis).
Claim 6: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein:
the cover plate is rotatable relative to the handle body between a first cover angle (WO-2020 Fig. 7) and a second cover plate angle (WO-2020 [0042] (the cover plate rotates about axis 14 to an angle pressing the microswitch)), and the cover plate triggers the trigger device when the cover plate and the handle body form the second cover plate angle (WO-2020 [0042])); and
the handle assembly further comprises a cover plate reset component (WO-2020 spring element 19) configured to move the cover plate relative to the handle body from the second cover plate angle to the first cover plate angle (the plunger 17 is biased to its initial position from a trigger position by the cover plate reset component (WO-2020 [0115]) and structured to move the cover plate from the second cover plate angle to the first cover plate angle), and the first cover plate angle is smaller than the second cover plate angle (relative to a plane parallel the door, the first cover plate angle is zero and the second cover plate angle is greater than zero).
Claim 7: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, 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 (as modified, the resulting handle body is structured to rotate with the cover plate from a first position having a first handle angle to a second position having a second handle angle greater than the first handle angle (US-2021, Fig. 9)); and
the handle assembly further comprises a handle body reset component (US-2021 [0061] (“a spring element”)) configured to move the handle body from the second handle angle towards the first handle angle (US-2021 [0061] (“a spring element ensures a return of the handle in its handling position”)).
Claim 8: WO-2020 in view of US-2021 teaches a vehicle (WO-2020 Fig. 1), comprising:
a vehicle body (WO-2020 Fig. 1); and
the handle assembly according to claim 1 (as shown above), the base being connected to the vehicle body (WO-2020 Fig. 1).
Claim 10: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein:
the handle body is rotatable about a first axis (US-2021, 15) relative to the base (as modified, the handle body is rotatable about a first axis arranged near the bottom of the handle body), and the cover plate is rotatable relative to the base about a second axis (WO-2020, 14) different from the first axis (as modified, the second axis is arranged near the top of the handle body, separate from the first axis); and
the first axis and the second axis are provided substantially in a vertical direction (US-2021 Figs. 8-9 depict the first axis extends in a vertical direction; WO-2020 Figs. 1 and 8 depict the second axis extends in a vertical direction).
Claim 11: WO-2020 discloses a handle assembly, comprising:
a base (8);
a handle body (7);
a cover plate (4) rotatably provided on the handle body (Fig. 8) and rotatable relative to the handle body about a second axis (14), the cover plate covering a surface of the handle body facing away from the base (Fig. 6); and
a trigger device ([0112] “microswitch” corresponds to a trigger device triggered by plunger 17) provided between the handle body and the cover plate (Figs. 7-8 depict the push button unit 18 between the handle body 7 and cover plate 4) and configured to be triggered by a relative motion between the cover plate and the handle body ([0042], [0112]);
wherein the cover plate comprises a protrusion (21), and wherein the handle assembly further comprises a cover plate reset component (plunger 17 with spring 19; claim 1) provided between the trigger device and the protrusion (the plunger is configured with one end facing the protrusion and the other end would trigger the microswitch when the plunger is pressed, so the cover plate reset component 17, 19 is between the trigger device and protrusion);
wherein the cover plate is rotatable relative to the handle body between a first cover plate angle (Fig. 7 depicts a first cover plate angle) and a second cover plate angle ([0042] (the cover plate rotates about axis 14 to a second angle pressing the microswitch)), and when the cover plate and the handle body form the second cover plate angle, the protrusion makes contact with the cover plate reset component to trigger the trigger device ([0112], [0129]; the protrusion pushes the cover plate reset component), the cover plate reset component being configured to move the cover plate relative to the handle body from the second cover plate angle towards the first cover plate angle (the cover plate reset component is structured to move the cover plate, via plunger 17 against element 21, toward the first cover plate angle).
WO-2020 is silent to the handle body rotatable relative to the base about a first axis, and the handle body and cover plate are rotatable together relative to the base about the first axis, and the cover plate rotatable about the second axis that is different from the first axis.
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. US-2021 teaches a handle assembly comprising a handle body (17) rotatable relative to a base about a first axis (15) and a cover plate (16) that are rotatable together relative to a base about the first axis (Fig. 9; [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the handle assembly disclosed by WO-2020 to be structured with the handle body and cover plate rotatable together relative to the base, as taught by US-2021. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a handle assembly comprising a base, a handle body, a cover plate rotatably provided on the handle body, and wherein the handle body and cover plate are rotatable together relative to the base for opening the vehicle door.
The resulting combination has a handle body rotatable about a first axis (US-2021, 15; as modified, the handle body is rotatable about a first axis arranged near the bottom of the handle body); and a cover plate rotatable relative to the base about a second axis (WO-2020 14) different from the first axis (as modified, the second axis is arranged near the top of the handle body, separate from the first axis).
Claim 14: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 11, wherein the first axis and the second axis are provided parallel to each other (as modified above, the axes extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the handle and are parallel), and the trigger device is provided between the first axis and the second axis (as modified above, the first axis is arranged below the trigger device toward the bottom of the handle body and the second axis is arranged above the trigger device toward the top of the handle body).
Claim 16: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 11, wherein the handle body is rotatable relative to the base between a first handle angle and a second handle angle (as modified, the resulting handle body is structured to rotate with the cover plate from a first handle angle relative to the base to a second handle angle (US-2021, Fig. 9)), the handle assembly further comprising a handle body reset component configured to move the handle body from the second handle angle towards the first handle angle (US-2021 [0061] (“a spring element ensures a return of the handle in its handling position”)).
Claim 18: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 11, wherein the cover plate has an outer surface forming an exterior surface of the handle assembly (WO-2020, 11), and the outer surface is configured to be pressed by a user at any position along an end portion of the cover plate to move the cover plate relative to the handle body and thereby cause the relative motion that triggers the trigger device (WO-2020 [0099]-[0100], [0112]).
Claim 19: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches a vehicle (WO-2020 Fig. 1) comprising:
a vehicle body (WO-2020 Fig. 1)l and
the handle assembly according to claim 11 (as shown above), the base being connected to the vehicle (WO-2020 Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2020, in view of US-2021, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pudney, US 2006/0038417 A1.
Claim 9: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the vehicle according to claim 8, further comprising:
wherein the handle body has a closed position (flush position, as in WO-2020 Fig. 2) and an open position (pulled position, as in US-2021 Fig. 9) and is rotatable relative to the base between the closed position and the open position (the handle body is configured to rotate relative to the base as it moves from the closed position to the open position).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teach a vehicle door and vehicle body, but are silent to specifically an external body sheet metal connected to the vehicle body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, that the vehicle taught by WO-2020, in view of US-2021, comprises an external body sheet metal connected to the vehicle body in order to provide a vehicle door on which the handle assembly is mounted. It is well known and established in the art that a vehicle door comprises an external body sheet metal, as evidenced by Pudney ([0036] (“the sheet metal forming the door”)). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely the vehicle further comprising an external body sheet metal connected to the vehicle body.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the resulting assembly includes the external body sheet metal and the handle configured such that, when the handle body is in the closed position, an outer surface of the cover plate is flush with the external body sheet metal (see WO-2020 Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2020, in view of US-2021, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Och et al., WO 2016/077069 A1.
Claim 12: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 11, but is silent to wherein the cover plate reset component comprises a dome-shaped spring.
Och et al. teaches a reset component comprising a dome-shaped spring (p. 5-6 (“catch spring is preferably of dome-shaped or conical form”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover plate reset component taught by WO-2020, in view of US-2021, to comprise a dome-shaped spring, as taught by Och et al. in order to provide audible and/or tactile feedback for the user (Och et al. p. 5-6).
Claim 13: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 12, wherein the trigger device comprises a sensor (WO-2020 a microswitch corresponds to a sensor).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2020, in view of US-2021, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Xin et al., CN 108166868 A.
Claim 17: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the handle assembly according to claim 16, including a handle body reset component, but is silent to specifically a torsion spring sheathed around a shaft defining the first axis, one end of the torsion spring abutting against the base and another end of the torsion spring abutting against the handle body.
Xin et al. teaches a torsion spring (420) sheathed around a shaft (410) defining an axis, one end of the torsion spring abutting against a base and another end of the torsion spring abutting against a handle body ([0042], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a torsion spring sheathed around a shaft defining the first axis, one end of the torsion spring abutting against the base and another end of the torsion spring abutting against the handle body, as taught by Xin et al. as the handle body reset component taught by WO-2020, in view of US-2021, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to practice the device and automatically return the handle body after its rotated (Xin et al. [0051-52]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2020, in view of US-2021, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Pudney, US 2006/0038417 A1.
Claim 20: WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teaches the vehicle according to claim 19, further comprising:
wherein the handle body has a closed position (flush position, as in WO-2020 Fig. 2) and an open position (pulled position, as in US-2021 Fig. 9) and is rotatable relative to the base between the closed position and the open position (the handle body is configured to rotate relative to the base as it moves from the closed position to the open position).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
WO-2020, in view of US-2021, teach a vehicle door and vehicle body, but are silent to specifically an external body sheet metal connected to the vehicle body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, that the vehicle taught by WO-2020, in view of US-2021, comprises an external body sheet metal connected to the vehicle body in order to provide a vehicle door on which the handle assembly is mounted. It is well known and established in the art that a vehicle door comprises an external body sheet metal, as evidenced by Pudney ([0036] (“the sheet metal forming the door”)). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely the vehicle further comprising an external body sheet metal connected to the vehicle body.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the resulting assembly includes the external body sheet metal and the handle configured such that, when the handle body is in the closed position, an outer surface of the cover plate is flush with the external body sheet metal (see WO-2020 Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 3 and 15.
In regards to claims 3 and 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose in particular the handle body and 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. While the individual structural elements may be found in references of record, there is no motivation to combine or modify the references that would not require the use of impermissible hindsight to define an apparatus with the above-mentioned features as required in claims 3 and 15.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2024/242238 A1 is related to a handle assembly comprising a handle body and a cover plate rotatably provided on the handle body.
FR 3087810 A1 is related to a handle rotatably provided on a handle body and a triggering device between them.
KR 20210055107 A is related to a flush handle assembly comprising a cover portion on a body portion and the handle cover and body are configured to rotate about the same axis together.
DE 10249579 A1 is related to a vehicle door comprising a cover plate portion configured to rotate to actuate a trigger device, and the trigger device provided between the cover and body portions, and a cover plate reset component.
US 11746575 B2 is related to a handle assembly comprising a cover plate and a handle body which are configured to rotate together about a first axis and the cover plate is structured to cover all or substantially all of an exterior-facing surface of the handle body.
US 2022/0243505 A1 is related to a handle assembly comprising a cover plate covering all or substantially all of a handle body and rotatable relative to the handle body to actuate a trigger device, and the cover plate and handle body rotatable together about an axis, but the trigger device is directly on the base and is not between the cover plate and handle body.
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
Prosecution Insights