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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
The examiner disagrees claim 16 requires the locking device and inertial masses to be separate from each other. The claim language does not require the locking device to be separately formed from the inertial masses. The examiner would also like to note the examiner is mapping 26 of Patel as the first inertial mass. The applicant argues against 34 of Patel as being the first inertial mass. Claims 16 and 17 in the Patel rejection have been reinterpreted to more clearly show the opposite movement directions as well as to clarify the rest and locking positions.
In regards to the arguments against Nomura, the examiner disagrees that a single locking device is required. Further a locking device may be an assembly of separate components.
Niegeloh et al. US 20140375068 A1 has also been introduced to reject the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 32M. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17 line 2 “at least a driven end” should read “at least one driven end”.
Claim 17 line 7 “the driven end” should read “the at least one driven end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Some of the 112 rejections have been overcome by the present amendments, however some remain and others have become apparent.
Claims 19-21, and 27-31 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.
In regards to claims 19 and 27, “a first pivoting part pivoting about said primary rotation axis, the first inertial mass being supported by said first pivoting part” is unclear. In the claim the first pivoting part and the first inertial mass appear to be separate elements however from careful consideration of the specification the inertial mass appears to be a part of the first pivoting part. As a consequence of this the relationship between the first inertial mass and first pivoting part is unclear, making the scope of the claim unclear. For example, is the first inertial mass, the mass property of the first pivoting part? Is the first inertial mass a separate element such as a weight embedded in the first pivoting part? Is the first inertial mass a portion of the first pivoting part? For the purposes of examination, it is assumed the first inertial mass may be a part of or separate from the first pivoting part.
Claim 20 and 28-31 is rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
In regards to claim 21, “the at least one driven end of the locking device” and “movement of the locking device between the rest position and the locking position” lack proper antecedent basis in the claim. Note claim 16 only introduces the rest position and locking position of the second inertial masses, not the locking device. Further it’s unclear if the claim intended to introduce these elements in this claim, or for the claim to depend on a claim which already introduces these limitation. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed and claim 21 is assumed to depend on claim 17.
In regards to claim 29, “a second pivoting part pivoting about said secondary rotation axis, the second inertial mass being supported by said second pivoting part” is unclear. In the claim the second pivoting part and the second inertial mass appear to be separate elements however from careful consideration of the specification the inertial mass appears to be a part of the second pivoting part. As a consequence of this the relationship between the second inertial mass and second pivoting part is unclear, making the scope of the claim unclear. For example, is the second inertial mass, the mass property of the second pivoting part? Is the second inertial mass a separate element such as a weight embedded in the second pivoting part? Is the second inertial mass a portion of the second pivoting part? For the purposes of examination, it is assumed the second inertial mass may be a part of or separate from the second pivoting part.
Claim 20, 22 and 28-31 is rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel US 20110163554 A1 (hereinafter Patel).
In regards to claim 16, Patel teaches an inertial system for a vehicle door handle assembly comprising: a locking device (88; including driven end seen in reference image 1) configured to prevent the actuation of the door handle upon activation (abstract); a first inertial mass (26), which, when subjected to an acceleration force acting in a first acceleration direction (80), is configured to move along a first movement direction (to the right wrt fig 4E; as a component of movement) from a rest position allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle (see fig 4A), to a locking position activating the locking device (see fig 4E); and a second inertial mass (a portion of 34 below 28 wrt fig 4A), which, when subjected to an acceleration force acting in a second acceleration direction opposite the first acceleration direction (70), is configured to move along a second movement direction (to the left wrt 4A; as a component of movement), from a rest position (see fig 4A) allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle (see fig 4D) to a locking position activating the locking device (see fig 4D), the first movement direction being opposite the second movement direction (see figs 4D-4E).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 17, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, wherein the locking device comprises a locking end (end connected to 48) and at least a driven end (see reference image 1), the locking device being movable between a locking position in which the locking end comes into contact with the door handle to prevent actuation of the door handle (such as in fig 4E) and a rest position into which the locking end is not in contact with the door handle (such as in fig 4A), the movement between the rest and locking position and vice versa being driven by a force applied by a driving end (84) that is linked to the first and/or second inertial mass onto the driven end (see figs 4A-4E).
In regards to claim 18, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 17, wherein the movement according to which the locking device moves between the rest and the locking position is a pivoting movement (See figs 4A and 4D-4E).
In regards to claim 19, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 18, further comprising a primary rotation axis (28) and a first pivoting part (portion of 34 above 28 wrt fig 4A) pivoting about said primary rotation axis , the first inertial mass being supported by said first pivoting part (see fig 4A; due to 89), wherein the locking device is supported by the primary rotation axis and a rotational movement of the locking device is a pivoting movement about the primary rotation axis (see figs 4A and 4D-4E).
In regards to claim 20, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 19, wherein the first pivoting part comprises a first body (body of the portion above 28 wrt fig 4c) linking a fixed end (end connected to 28) mounted on the primary rotation axis to a first mass end (end connected to 84) supporting the first inertial mass, and wherein the driven end is driven by the first body (see fig 4D, via connection to 84).
In regards to claim 26, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 17, wherein, in the locking position, the locking end comes into contact with the door handle via a blocking device (16; see fig 4D).
In regards to claim 27, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, further comprising a primary rotation axis (portion of 28, 34 rotates about) and a first pivoting part (portion of 34 above 28 wrt fig 4A) pivoting about said primary rotation axis, the first inertial mass being supported by said first pivoting part (See figs 4A and 4D-4E, due to 89).
In regards to claim 28, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 27, wherein the first pivoting part comprises a first body linking a fixed end (end connected to 28) mounted on the primary rotation axis to a first mass end (end connected to 84) supporting the first inertial mass (see fig 4D, via 89).
In regards to claim 29, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 27, further comprising a secondary rotation axis (18) and a second pivoting part (16) pivoting about said secondary rotation axis (see fig 4B, the second inertial mass being supported by said second pivoting part (see fig 4B, at least since prevent 34 from moving when 16 is actuated in normal operation).
In regards to claim 30, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 29, wherein the second pivoting part comprises a second driving end (55) and a second mass end (end above axis wrt fig 3), the driving end and the second mass end being located on opposite sides of the secondary rotation axis (at least in normal operation see figs 3 and 4A).
In regards to claim 31, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 30, wherein the locking device comprises a second driven end (48), and the second driven end (48) is driven by the second driving end (see fig 3).
In regards to claim 32, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, further comprising first elastic means (54), said first elastic means being in a minimal tensile stress state when the locking device is in a rest position, and configured to apply a force or torque on the locking device, to bring said locking device from the locking position back in the rest position (para 20).
In regards to claim 33, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, further comprising second elastic means (54), said second elastic means being in a minimal tensile stress state when the second inertial mass is in the rest position (see fig 4A), and configured to apply a force or torque on the second inertial mass, to bring said second inertial mass from the locking position back in the rest position (para 20 as 84 pushes 34, see fig 4A).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nomura et al. WO 2017130606 A1 (hereinafter Nomura).
In regards to claim 16, Nomura teaches an inertial system for a vehicle door handle assembly comprising: a locking device (280 and 380) configured to prevent the actuation of the door handle upon activation; a first inertial mass (one of 85, see fig 17), which, when subjected to an acceleration force acting in a first acceleration direction, is configured to move along a first movement direction from a rest position (see fig 15a) allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle, to a locking position (see fig 15b) activating the locking device; and a second inertial mass (other of 85, see fig 17), which, when subjected to an acceleration force acting in a second acceleration direction opposite the first acceleration direction, is configured to move along a second movement direction, from a rest position (see fig 15a) allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle to a locking position (see fig 15c) activating the locking device, the first movement direction being opposite the second movement direction (see figs 15a-15b).
Claim(s) 16-22 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niegeloh et al. US 20140375068 A1 (hereinafter Niegeloh).
In regards to claim 16, Niegeloh teaches an inertial system for a vehicle door handle assembly comprising : a locking device (9) configured to prevent the actuation of the door handle upon activation; a first inertial mass (see reference image 2), which, when subjected to an acceleration force acting in a first acceleration direction (24), is configured to move along a first movement direction (south wrt fig 10, south is a component of movement of 15) from a rest position (as seen in fig 8) allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle (see fig 12), to a locking position (see fig 14) activating the locking device (as 9 now blocks 11); and a second inertial mass (see reference image 2), which, when subjected to an acceleration force acting in a second acceleration direction (26) opposite the first acceleration direction (see fig 16), is configured to move along a second movement direction north wrt fig 10; north is a component of movement of 16), from a rest position (as seen in fig 8) allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle to a locking position (see fig 16) activating the locking device, the first movement direction being opposite the second movement direction (see figs 8, 14, and 16).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference image 2
In regards to claim 17, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, wherein the locking device comprises a locking end (outer circumference of 9) and at least a driven end (18a and/or 18b), the locking device being movable between a locking position (when 12 is not aligned with 11) in which the locking end comes into contact with the door handle to prevent actuation of the door handle (such as in fig 14) and a rest position (see fig 11) into which the locking end is not in contact with the door handle (see fig 10), the movement between the rest and locking position and vice versa being driven by a force applied by a driving end (an end of 15 contacting 18a and/or and end of 16 contacting 18b) that is linked to the first and/or second inertial mass onto the driven end (see fig 8).
In regards to claim 18, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 17, wherein the movement according to which the locking device moves between the rest and the locking position is a pivoting movement (see figs 10, 12, and 14).
In regards to claim 19, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 18, further comprising a primary rotation axis (14) and a first pivoting part pivoting about said primary rotation axis (see reference image 2), the first inertial mass being supported by said first pivoting part (see fig 8), wherein the locking device is supported by the primary rotation axis and a rotational movement of the locking device is a pivoting movement about the primary rotation axis (see figs 10 and 12).
In regards to claim 20, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 19, wherein the first pivoting part comprises a first body (see reference image 2) linking a fixed end mounted on the primary rotation axis (see reference image 2) to a first mass end (see reference image 2) supporting the first inertial mass, and wherein the driven end is driven by the first body (see fig 14).
In regards to claim 21, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, wherein the at least one driven end of the locking device comprises a first driven end (18a) and a second driven end (18b), the movement of the locking device between the rest position and the locking position and vice versa being driven by a force applied by a first driving end (end of 15 contacting 18a) that is linked to the first inertial mass onto the first driven end (see fig 14) or a force applied by a second driving end (end of 16 contacting 18b) that is linked to the second inertial mass onto the second driven end (see fig 16).
In regards to claim 22, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 21, wherein the second driven end is driven by the second driving end (see fig 16).
In regards to claim 26, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 17, wherein, in the locking position, the locking end comes into contact with the door handle via a blocking device (7; see fig 13).
In regards to claim 27, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, further comprising a primary rotation axis (axis of 14) and a first pivoting part (see reference image 2) pivoting about said primary rotation axis, the first inertial mass being supported by said first pivoting part (see reference image 2).
In regards to claim 28, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 27, wherein the first pivoting part comprises a first body (see reference image 2) linking a fixed end (see reference image 2) mounted on the primary rotation axis to a first mass end (see reference image 2) supporting the first inertial mass (see fig 8).
In regards to claim 29, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Niegeloh teaches the system according to claim 27, further comprising a secondary rotation axis (axis of 7) and a second pivoting part (7) pivoting about said secondary rotation axis, the second inertial mass being supported by said second pivoting part (see figs 10 and 12, when 11 first makes contact with 9, 7 would support 16 in its position as 18b wouldn’t allow movement of 16).
In regards to claim 30, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 29, wherein the second pivoting part comprises a second driving end (11) and a second mass end (west end wrt fig 4), the driving end and the second mass end being located on opposite sides of the secondary rotation axis (see figs 5, 7 and 9).
In regards to claim 31, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 30, wherein the locking device comprises a second driven end (end 11 contacts in fig 12), and the second driven end is driven by the second driving end (see fig 12).
In regards to claim 32, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, further comprising first elastic means (spring element in para 47), said first elastic means being in a minimal tensile stress state when the locking device is in a rest position, and configured to apply a force or torque on the locking device, to bring said locking device from the locking position back in the rest position (para 47).
In regards to claim 33, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, further comprising second elastic means (spring element in para 47), said second elastic means being in a minimal tensile stress state when the second inertial mass is in the rest position, and configured to apply a force or torque on the second inertial mass, to bring said second inertial mass from the locking position back in the rest position (para 47).
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) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niegeloh as applied to claims 16-22 and 26-33 above, and further in view of Lesueur et al. WO 2012175599 A1 (hereinafter Lesueur).
In regards to claim 23, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 17.
However, Nomura does not teach further comprising dampening means, said dampening means delaying the bringing back of the locking device from the locking position back to the rest position by a predetermined period of time.
Lesueur teaches dampening means (37), said dampening means delaying the bringing back of the locking device from the locking position back to the rest position by a predetermined period of time (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Niegeloh with a dampening means such as in Lesueur in order to further prevent undesired opening of the door (Lesueur: page 2 lines 4-10).
In regards to claim 24, Nomura in view of Lesueur teaches the inertial system according to claim 23, where the predetermined period of time is above 0.5 seconds (Lesueur page 4 lines 5-6).
In regards to claim 25, Nomura in view of Lesueur teaches the inertial system according to claim 23, where the predetermined period of time is between 0.5 and 1 seconds (Lesueur page 4 lines 5-6).
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel as applied to claims 16-20 and 26-33 above, and further in view of Kunst DE 102006025719 A1 (hereinafter Kunst).
In regards to claim 34, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 16.
However, Patel does not teach wherein at least one of the first and second inertial masses comprises a socket in which a bumper can be inserted.
Kunst teaches a socket (10) in which a bumper (7) can be inserted (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided at least one of Patel’s first and second inertial masses with a socket in which a bumper can be inserted in order to reduce noise (Kunst Para 3).
In regards to claim 35, Patel in view of Kunst teaches the inertial system according to claim 34, wherein said bumper is made out of rubber and injected (Note: the italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. Since Patel teaches a rubber bumper within a socket the end result is the same) in the socket (Kunst paras 11-12).
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niegeloh as applied to claims 16-22 and 26-33 above, and further in view of Kunst.
In regards to claim 34, Niegeloh teaches the inertial system according to claim 16.
However, Niegeloh does not teach wherein at least one of the first and second inertial masses comprises a socket in which a bumper can be inserted.
Kunst teaches a socket (10) in which a bumper (7) can be inserted (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided at least one of Niegeloh’s first and second inertial masses with a socket in which a bumper can be inserted in order to reduce noise (Kunst Para 3).
In regards to claim 35, Niegeloh in view of Kunst teaches the inertial system according to claim 34, wherein said bumper is made out of rubber and injected (Note: the italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. Since Patel teaches a rubber bumper within a socket the end result is the same) in the socket (Kunst paras 11-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Savant US 20140375068 A1 Niegeloh et al. teaches a similar device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights