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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-9 and the cancellation of claim 10 filed December 15, 2025.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyholdt et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0186992) in view of Guerin (US Pub. No. 2021/0381287).
In regards to claim 1, Freyholdt et al. discloses an assembly for opening and/or closing a vehicle door 2, the assembly comprising a handle 4 and at least one electronic switch 8 (unlocking component 8 can be in the form of a sensor or a switch, Paragraph 8) configured to be activated by a user’s touch so as to send a signal to an electronic latch to open the door (Paragraph 15), wherein a user's hand has access to the at least one electronic switch through a space surrounding the handle (see Figure, with the user’s hand following path 12), wherein the assembly further comprises at least one sensor 6, 10 configured to detect the user’s hand so as to allow a locking and/or an unlocking of the door when the user’s hand is detected (Paragraph 21), the at least one sensor being positioned such that, when the user’s hand is inserted in the space surrounding the handle in order to reach the at least one electronic switch, the user’s hand is detected by the at least one sensor before the user’s hand reaches the at least one electronic switch so as to allow the unlocking of the door (Paragraphs 16 and 17). Freyholdt et al. fails to disclose a bracket configured to be assembled to an inner side of the door, and a cover member configured to be secured to the bracket, with the cover member comprising a frame part and an inner wall part extending from the frame part so as to allow the access of the user’s hand to the at least one electronic switch of the bracket. Guerin teaches a cover member 30, 35, 36 comprising a frame part 30 and an inner wall part (inner wall of frame part 30 in which handle 31a is received) extending from the frame part so as to allow an access of the user’s hand to a handle 31a, with the cover member secured to a bracket 2 configured to be assembled to an inner side of a door (Paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a cover member and bracket, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is known in the vehicle handle art to utilize a bracket and a cover member to mount a handle to a vehicle door, to house the handle, and to create an aesthetically pleasing device at the outer surface of the door. In the combination, the bracket would comprise or include within its boundaries the at least one electronic switch because the handle is attached to the bracket.
In regards to claim 2, Freyholdt et al. in view of Guerin teaches that the at least one sensor has an unlocking sensing range extending between the frame part and the at least one electronic switch (since sensor portion 6 is located between where the frame part would meet the door 2 in the figure of Freyholdt et al. and the location of the at least one electronic switch 8, then the range of sensor portion 6 is in this location as well).
In regards to claim 3, Freyholdt et al. discloses that the at least one sensor has a locking sensing range (range of locking sensor portion 10) extending upstream the unlocking sensing range along a course followed by the user’s hand so as to reach the at least one electronic switch (along course from location of portion 10 and then following path 12, with portion 10 located before or upstream of portion 6, see figure).
In regards to claim 4, Freyholdt et al. discloses that the at least one sensor comprises a locking detection part 10 configured to detect the user’s hand so as to allow the locking of the door and an unlocking detection part 6 configured to detected the user’s hand so as to allow the unlocking of the door (Paragraph 21).
In regards to claim 5, Freyholdt et al. discloses that the locking detection part extends by a non-zero angle from the unlocking detection part (based on the parts locations relative to one another in the figure).
In regards to claim 6, Freyholdt et al. in view of Guerin teaches that the at least one sensor is arranged on a side of the cover member (on a side or back side of the cover member through the connection of the handle with the bracket and the cover member), opposite to a side of the cover member intended to face the user’s hand when the user’s hand is inserted in the cover member in order to reach the at least one electronic switch (side of cover member facing out to the user when assembled to the door, Figures 1 and 2 of Guerin).
In regards to claim 7, Freyholdt et al. in view of Guerin teaches that the at least one sensor is arranged against the inner wall part of the cover member (arranged against the inner wall part via the connection of the handle with the cover member and the bracket).
In regards to claim 8, Freyholdt et al. discloses that the at least one sensor is a capacitive sensor (Paragraph 13).
In regards to claim 9, Freyholdt et al. discloses that the at least one sensor is a standalone sensor (considered a standalone sensor because sensor portions 6 and 10 are separate from switch 10 and per Paragraph 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on Pages 8-10 filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s first and third remarks regarding the combination of Freyholdt and Guerin on Pages 8 and 9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, claim 1 does not require that the at least one electronic switch be directly located on the bracket. The combination of Freyholdt and Guerin was to include a bracket and a cover member, not to relocate the at least one electronic switch of Freyholdt. Since the bracket includes or is coupled to the handle within the boundaries of the bracket in Guerin (as shown in Figures 7C and 8C, for example), then, in the combination, the handle of Freyholdt, including the at least one electronic switch, would be comprised in or within the boundaries of the bracket, as required by the phrase “the bracket comprising at least one electronic switch.” The current claim language does not exclude this interpretation.
In regards to applicant’s second remarks regarding the combination of Freyholdt and Guerin on Page 9, the cover member includes component 30, which includes an inner wall part (inner wall of frame part 30 in which the handle 31a is received) so as to allow access of the user’s hand to the at least one electronic switch. For clarification, as shown in annotated Figures 1 and 2 of Guerin, the inner wall includes an open area in which a user’s hand can extend, such that at least the user’s fingers can be located behind and grasp handle 31a. In the combination, since the at least one electronic switch is located at the back of the handle (see drawing of Freyholdt), then the user’s hand would have access to the at least one electronic switch via the inner wall part of Guerin. As discussed in Paragraph 16 above, since the handle of Freyholdt would be within the confines of the bracket, then the bracket “comprises” the at least one electronic switch and the at least one electronic switch is accessible by a user’s hand via the inner wall taught by Guerin, and therefore, the claim limitations are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
938
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims, the objections to the specification, the objections to the claims, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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 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 March 24, 2026