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
Claim 21-25 and 30-31 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.
In regards to claim 21, “the movement between the rest position and the locking position” lacks antecedent basis. It’s unclear if the movement is the movement of the locking device or other element. Further if the former is true “the rest position and the locking position” lack proper antecedent basis and it’s unclear if these terms were intended to be introduced in this claim or for the claim to depend on a claim which introduces these terms (claim 17). For the purposes examination the movement is assumed to be of the locking device and the rest position and locking position are assumed to be introduced this claim. Additionally, “the at least one driven end” lacks proper antecedent basis and it’s unclear if this term was intended to be introduced in this claim or for the claim to depend on a claim which introduces this term (claim 17). For the purpose of examination, the former is assumed.
Claim 22 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim above.
In regards to claim 23 “the locking position” and “the rest position” of the locking device lack antecedent basis. Furthermore, it’s unclear if these terms were intended to be introduced in this claim or for the claim to depend on a claim which introduces these terms (claim 17). For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed.
Claims 24-25 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim above.
In regards to claim 30, “the driving end and the second mass end being located from either side of the secondary rotation axis” is unclear. Due to the language and the examiner’s understanding of the drawing it’s unclear if the applicant is intending to claim the driving end and the second mass end being at opposite sides of the secondary rotation axis or on optionally either side. For the purpose of examination, the former is assumed.
In regards to claim 31, “the second driven end” lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it’s unclear if the applicant intended to introduce the element in this claim or for this claim to depend on a claim which introduces this term. For the purpose of examination, the former is assumed.
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) 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 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 (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, from a rest position (see fig 4A) allowing the opening of the door by actuation of the door handle (see fig 4B) 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).
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 (end with 84), 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 (see fig 4D) and a rest position into which the locking end is not in contact with the door handle (see fig 4A), the movement between the rest and locking position and vice versa being driven by a force applied by a driving end that is linked to the first and/or second inertial mass onto the driven end (see figs 4D-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, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 18, further comprising a primary rotation axis (axis 26 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 fig 4A), 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 linking a fixed end (end connected to 26) 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).
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, 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).
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).
In regards to claim 29, 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 from either side of the secondary rotation axis (at least in normal operation see figs 3 and 4A).
In regards to claim 31, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Patel teaches the inertial system according to claim 30, wherein 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, 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 20 as 84 pushes 34, see fig 4A).
Claim(s) 16 and 21-22 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 (portion of 280 above pivot axis and portion of 380 above pivot axis wrt fig 17) 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).
In regards to claim 21, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Nomura teaches the inertial system according to claim 16, wherein the at least one driven end of the locking device (ends with teeth) comprises a first driven end (282) and a second driven end (382), the movement between the rest position and the locking position and vice versa being driven by a force applied by a first driving end (end of 280 with 85) that is linked to the first inertial mass onto the first driven end or a force applied by a second driving end (end of 380 connected to 85) that is linked to the second inertial mass onto the second driven end (see fig 17).
In regards to claim 22, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Nomura teaches the inertial system according to claim 21, wherein the second driven end is driven by the second driving end (see fig 17).
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 Nomura as applied to claims 16 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Lesueur et al. WO 2012175599 A1 (hereinafter Lesueur).
In regards to claim 23, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Nomura teaches the inertial system according to claim 16.
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 Nomura 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Savant US 20120061162 A1 teaches similar driven ends
Ilardo et al. US 20150322699 A1 – teaches similar to above.
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
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights