Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/756,589

VEHICLE DOOR ASSEMBLIES FOR VEHICLES INCLUDING HANDLE SPRING MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
655 granted / 1014 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1053
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on October 27, 2025 is acknowledged. The examiner agrees that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14, and therefore, claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 are withdrawn. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph 19, line 3, the phrase “mat be” should be changed to “may be,” and in Paragraph 22, line 1, the phrase “an outer casing 25” should be changed to “an outer casing 35.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 1, line 6, the phrase “one or more cables where at least one cable of the one or more cables operably connects” should be changed to “at least one cable operably connects,” and in line 8, the phrase “by the one or more cables” should be changed to “by the at least one cable.” In regards to claim 2, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the at least one cable comprises a first cable that extends between the spring module and the door latch assembly and a second cable that extends between the spring module and the door interior handle.” In regards to claim 8, line 4, the phrase “a door interior handle including a primary spring” should be changed to “a door interior handle assembly including a primary spring,” and in line 6, the phrase “a latched position” should be changed to “the latched position.” In regards to claim 9, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the at least one cable comprises a first cable that extends between the spring module and the door interior handle and a second cable that extends between the spring module and the door latch assembly.” Appropriate correction is required. 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, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14 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 claim 1, it is unclear how many cables applicant intends to claim. Specifically, the phrase “one or more cables” suggests that the device can operate with a single cable, however, there is no support in the specification for a singular cable to be used in the device. Furthermore, it is unclear how one or more cables connect the door interior handle to the spring module, when it is shown in the drawings that a singular cable provides the connection between the door interior handle and the spring module. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above. In regards to claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 in Paragraph 7 above, it is unclear how many cables applicant intends to claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above. In regards to claim 8, line 4, it is unclear how the door interior handle can include a primary spring and itself, as suggested by the phrase “a door interior handle including a primary spring that biases a door interior handle.” It is understood from the specification that the device includes a door interior handle assembly that includes the primary spring and the door interior handle, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above. In regards to claim 8, the relationship between the “latched position” of line 6 and the “latched position” of lines 4 and 5 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “latched position” of line 6 is equivalent to the “latched position” of lines 4 and 5, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above. In regards to claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for “one or more cables” in claim 8, and the relationship between the “one or more cables” of claim 9 and the “at least one cable” of claim 8 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the first and second cables of claim 2 are included in the “at least one cable” of claim 8, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above. In regards to claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 14, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US-5660081). In regards to claim 1, Sato discloses a vehicle comprising: a vehicle door assembly (trunk lid considered as a vehicle door assembly because the lid is a barrier or panel of the vehicle that is moved such that entry is allowed or prevented to a compartment, i.e. the trunk, Col. 1, lines 8-12) comprising: a door interior handle assembly including a primary spring 57 that biases a door interior handle 17 toward a latched position (neutral or rest position shown in Figure 12 in which the door interior handle has not actuated latch assembly T); a door latch assembly T; at least one cable 5 and 6 operably connects the door interior handle to the door latch assembly; and a spring module 2 (Figure 12) operably connected to the door interior handle by the at least one cable such that the spring module provides a secondary biasing force (force of spring 62) that biases the door interior handle toward the latched position (Col. 9, lines 12-23). In regards to claim 2, Sato discloses that the at least one cable comprises a first cable 6 that extends between the spring module and the door latch assembly and a second cable 5 that extends between the spring module and the door interior handle. In regards to claims 4 and 11, Sato discloses that the spring module comprises an outer casing 59 and a secondary spring 62 located in the casing that is configured to bias the at least one cable. In regards to claims 7 and 14, Sato discloses that the secondary spring is a torsion spring (Figure 12). In regards to claim 8, Sato discloses a method of controlling unlatching of a door latch assembly T of a vehicle door assembly (trunk lid and portion of the vehicle to which the support 59 is mounted, with the trunk lid considered as a vehicle door because the lid is a barrier or panel of the vehicle that is moved such that entry is allowed or prevented to a compartment, i.e. the trunk, Col. 1, lines 8-12), the method comprising: connecting a spring module 2 to at least one cable 5 and 6, the at least one cable operably connecting to a door interior handle assembly including a primary spring 57 that biases a door interior handle 17 toward a latched position (neutral or rest position shown in Figure 12 in which the door interior handle has not actuated latch assembly T), the spring module configured to provide a secondary biasing force (force of spring 62) that biases the door interior handle toward the latched position (Col. 9, lines 12-23); and mounting the spring module inside the vehicle door assembly (Col. 8, lines 38-41). In regards to claim 9, Sato discloses that the at least one cable comprises a first cable 5 that extends between the spring module and the door interior handle and a second cable 6 that extends between the spring module and the door latch assembly. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US-5660081) in view of Brose (DE 202011002760 U1). Sato discloses the vehicle and method of claims 1 and 11 above, with the secondary spring configured to bias a rotatable element 33 located in the outer casing and coupled to the at least one cable (Figure 12), but fails to disclose that the rotatable element is a cable drum around which the at least one cable is wound. Bose teaches a cable drum 8 around which at least one cable 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is wound (Paragraph 13 of the Computer Generated Translation), with the cable drum providing a rotatable connection between a door interior handle 23 and a door latch assembly 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to utilize a cable drum to connect to the at least one cable, with reasonable expectation of success, since the use of the cable drum would yield the predictable result of providing a rotatable element to which the at least one cable is connected and provide a means by which the door latch assembly can be actuated by the door interior handle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM. 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 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. /ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 November 19, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595691
DECLUTCHING SYSTEM FOR A HANDLE ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584334
MOTOR VEHICLE DOOR ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565795
ELECTROMECHANICAL LOCKSET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559976
DOOR LOCK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546151
DEADBOLT DOOR LOCKING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+31.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month