DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments from the response filed on 3 June 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
The applicant’s chosen scope of invention is “a bracket”. The location of where a bracket is to be used as an inner side of a vehicle door. The intended use recitation carries little to no patentable weight. Applicants’ argument regarding a door are unpersuasive.
For the sake of compact prosecution the recitation of “inner“ is a relative term. Without further defining a frame of reference renders a claim indefinite. There are many interpretations of “inner”. Any location within an outer perimeter of a vehicle for instance may be interpreted as “inner”.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Concerning connector part. Any two elements that can be joined in any way may be interpreted as a first and second connector part. Applicant has failed to provide structural recitation which would preclude the prior art from disclosing his or her invention. The argument is unpersuasive.
Concerning sensor, the reference of linden discloses at least one sensor also at least one switch element which are utilized to send a signal to an electronic latch to open a door. One of ordinary skill in the art should easily understand that the structure disclosed and discussed by the refence of Linden et al. is structurally equivalent and provides the equivalent function as claimed by the applicant. The applicant has failed to provide recitation which would distinguish over what is taught or suggested by the reference of Linden et al. The argument is unpersuasive.
Concerning the applicant’s argument of opening a door vs unlocking a door, without providing any structure to or recitation to accomplish the movement of a door, Unlocking and a condition of open is reasonably considered equivalent. Should the applicant desire ownership of motion control of a door, the applicant will need to claim such structure capable of door movement as the current recitation appears incapable of movement of a door as claimed. Nowhere in the applicant’s claims is there a requirement that the door is somehow moved by the claimed bracket. The reference of Linden does discuss: The powered closure assembly can move between a first position and a different, second position in response to a transition of the switch. – summary Linden et al. The argument is unpersuasive.
Concerning connection, any two functional elements described in Linden et al. reasonably may be considered connected, which meets the applicant’s recitation as the applicant’s recitation is devoid of structural recitation which would make any distinction over what is taught or suggested by the reference of Linden et al. The argument is unpersuasive.
Concerning the mounting of the elements of Linden et al., applicant refers to aspects of Linden et al. which are not relied upon or relevant to disclosing what I recited by the applicant. The argument is unpersuasive.
Concerning electrical connection of Linden et al., it is reasonable in considering the switches, sensors, powered closure assembly, controller module and the lines drawn between electrical elements in Fig.1 that electrical connection is present in the reference of Linden et al. Further, the applicant fails to claim wires, conductors of any kind, power source which would be required to operate an electrical device. In as much as the applicant can be reasonably understood electrical connection is present, so too are the electrical elements of the reference of Linden et al. electrically connected. The applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In summary, applicants’ arguments are constructed on a foundation that is without claimed structure. Each argument fails to persuade as argument cannot substitute or remedy the lack of evidence in the applicant’s argument. Statements of council cannot replace evidence in the evaluation of what is taught or suggested by the reference of Linden et al.
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linden et al. (US 2021/0172217).
Regarding claim 1, Linden et al. discloses a bracket (54) to be assembled to an inner side of a vehicle door, the bracket comprising:
at least one electronic switch (126) configured to be activated by a user’s touch so as to send a signal ([0054, l.8-9) to an electronic latch to open the door ([0051]), and
a body, wherein the bracket further comprises a second connector part (annotated Fig. 1, wire), configured to cooperate with a first connector part (electrically connected 26) of at least one sensor (126) configured to detect a user’s hand so as to allow a locking and/or unlocking of the door when the user’s hand is detected, so as to connect the at least one sensor to the bracket, the second connector part being secured to the body of the bracket (Fig.3) .
PNG
media_image1.png
368
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure from Linden et al. (US 2021/0172217)
Regarding claim 2, Linden et al. discloses the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the second connector part is configured to cooperate with the first connector part by clipping (66, mounting).
Regarding claim 3, Linden et al. discloses the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the bracket is configured such that the second connector part extends vertically (Portions of wire element annotated Fig.1) extend vertically) once the vehicle door is assembled to a vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Linden et al. discloses the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the second connector part (annotated Fig. 1, wire) extends orthogonally to a longitudinal axis (direction is relative, as undefined taken as any instead of indefinite) of the bracket.
Regarding claim 5, Linden et al. discloses an assembly for opening and/or closing a vehicle door, the assembly comprising:
the bracket according to claim 1,
a cover member (58) configured to be attached to the bracket, at least one sensor (126) configured to detect the user’s hand ([0054]) so as to allow locking ((first state) and/or unlocking (second state)of the door when the user’s hand is detected, the at least one sensor comprising a first connector part (electrical connections),
wherein the first connector part (electrically connected 126) and the second connector part (annotated Fig. 1, wire) are configured to cooperate with each other so as to connect the at least one sensor to the bracket, the second connector part being secured to the body of the bracket (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 6, Linden et al. discloses the assembly according to claim 5, wherein the at least one sensor (126) is arranged on the cover member (58, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 7, Linden et al. discloses a method for mounting the assembly according to claim 5 on a vehicle door, the method comprising:
a first step of assembling the bracket (54) to an inner side of the vehicle door;
a second step of connecting the first connector part (electrically connected 26) and the second connector part (annotated Fig. 1, wire); and
a third step of assembling the cover member (58) to an external side of the vehicle door,
wherein the second step is performed after the first step, and the third step is performed after the second step (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 8, Linden et al. discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the second connector part (annotated Fig. 1, wire) remains secured to the bracket 54) at least during the mounting of the assembly on the vehicle door.
Regarding claim 9, Linden et al. discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising a fourth step of securing the cover member (58) to the bracket (54), the fourth step being performed after the third step.
Regarding claim 10, Linden et al. discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the fourth step of securing comprises:
Clipping (66) the cover member to the bracket; and
locking the cover member (58) on the bracket by sliding a locking element of the bracket.
Regarding claim 11, Linden et al. discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the clipping comprises inserting clipping means (66) of the cover member through at least one aperture of the bracket (followed contour into concavity Fig.6), the locking resulting from the locking element being positioned at least partially between the clipped clipping means and the aperture (Fig.6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights