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
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-10 recite the phrase “in particular” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070262589 to Moran.
Regarding claim 1, Moran discloses:
A handle and/or locking device (10) for a sliding door of recreational vehicles (Note: This limitation is considered intended use and is not given patentable weight), in particular motorhomes or caravans, with a handle shell (16), an actuating element (30) and a mounting plate (72), wherein the mounting plate is connected to the handle shell in a fixed position relative to the handle shell (72 is fixed relative to 16 and does not move), wherein the actuating element is pivotably mounted between the handle shell and the mounting plate (fig 2b), and wherein the handle shell has a recess (20) which allows actuation of the actuating element (fig 2b).
Regarding claim 2, Moran discloses:
The handle and/or locking device according to claim 1, characterized in that the handle shell has a grip recess (26) that opens outwards and that the actuating element extends through the recess of the handle shell into the grip recess of the handle shell, at least in the non- actuated state (fig 2a, 30 extends into recess 20 and into grip recess 26).
Regarding claim 3, Moran discloses:
The handle and/or locking device according to claim 1, characterized in that the actuating element is pivotably mounted on a pin (44) provided, in particular formed, on the handle shell (fig 2a).
Regarding claim 9, Moran discloses:
A sliding door (64) for a recreational vehicle (Note: This limitation is considered intended use and is not given patentable weight), in particular a motorhome or a caravan, with a door leaf (68) which has a recess (20), and a handle (30) and/or locking device according to claim 1, which is inserted into the recess of the door leaf and is connected to the door leaf (via 16, see figs 1 and 2a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070262589 to Moran in view of US 2647003 to Way.
Regarding claim 5, Moran does not explicitly disclose:
The handle and/or locking device according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one spring element is provided which is connected on the one hand to the handle shell and on the other hand to the actuating element, and that the spring element is prestressed such that the non-actuated actuating element is held in the non-actuated position.
However, Way teaches that it is well known in the art for at least one spring element (58) is provided which is connected on the one hand to the handle shell (46) and on the other hand to the actuating element (54), and that the spring element is prestressed such that the non-actuated actuating element is held in the non-actuated position (fig 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Way into Moran at least because doing so would provide additional control over the actuating element by biasing it to the desired position.
Regarding claim 6, Moran in view of Way discloses:
The handle and/or locking device according to claim 5 characterized in that the spring element is connected to a pin provided, in particular formed, on the handle shell (59).
Regarding claim 10, Moran does not explicitly disclose:
A recreational vehicle, in particular a motorhome or caravan, with at least one sliding door according to claim 9.
However, Way teaches that it is well known in the art for a sliding door according to claim 9 to be utilized in a recreational vehicle (fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Way into Moran at least because doing so would provide additional utility of the invention in different desirable situations and apparatuses.
Regarding claim 11, Moran in view of Way discloses:
The recreational vehicle according to characterized in that at least one piece of furniture (window of 11) is provided which has at least one sliding door (11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675