Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/838,117

Vehicle Door for a Motor Vehicle and Method for Operating Such a Vehicle Door

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 13, 2024
Priority
Feb 21, 2022 — DE 10 2022 104 046.1 +1 more
Examiner
LUGO, CARLOS
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
932 granted / 1247 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1295
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1247 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 . This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 8/25/25. 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 11-20 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. Claims 11 and 20 requires that the electronic operating member is movable between a stowed position and an operating position. At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since the element that actually moves between the two positions is the handle; the electronic operating member is a member mounted in the handle. Correction is required. Claim 12 requires that the handle moves between the stowed and operating positions. However, it is unclear how, since the claim does not provide any structure that allows that function. The handle does not move by itself. Correction is required. Claim 15 requires the following: PNG media_image1.png 176 671 media_image1.png Greyscale At the instant, it is unclear what is claimed here. First, the invention requires a sensor (15) that when activated, the door drive 17 automatically open the door. That is clear. However, then there is another sensor (16) for manually open the door by the handle and assisted by the door drive in a servo mode. IF the door drive is used, then how the opening of the door can be “manual” as claimed? Furthermore, for automatically open the door with the 1st sensor (15), the handle is also assisting since the sensor is only accessible when the handle is moved. Finally, how the door drive changes between modes? Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required. Claim 16 requires the following: PNG media_image2.png 123 658 media_image2.png Greyscale At the instant, the limitation is indefinite. First, claim 16 presents the same issue. Is the handle disposed on the window, not the electronic operating member. Correction is required. Second, the electronic operating element 3 is not disposed of in a window shaft. As clearly shown in fig 2, the electronic operating element 3 is disposed on a handle shaft, so that in the stowage position, the electronic operating element 3 is disposed of inside the door and in the operating position, the element is disposed on a region of the sill line. Correction is required. 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) 11-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Pat No 8,701,353 to Patel et al (Patel). PNG media_image3.png 654 1001 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claims 11, 12 and 20, Patel discloses a vehicle door for a motor vehicle that comprises an electronic operating element (96) disposed on an outside of the vehicle door (14). An electric door lock (30) is openable via the electronic operating element. The electronic operating element (96) is integrated into a handle element (152) for opening the vehicle door, wherein the handle element is movable between a stowed position and an operating position. As to claim 13, Patel discloses that the electronic operating element (96) is disposed in a region of the handle element that is hidden from an outer side and/or a top side of the vehicle door. As to claim 14, Patel discloses that the electronic operating element has a touch sensor device via which a door opening signal for electrically opening the electric door lock is generatable (col 7 line 59). As to claim 17, Patel discloses that the electronic operating element is activatable by a near-field communication device (fob) and the handle is then movable between the stowed position and the operating position by the near-field communication device. As to claim 18, Patel discloses that the electronic operating element has at least one indicator (20, 22) for at least an operating state or an electrical charge state. As to claim 19, Patel discloses that the vehicle door further comprises a control device (31, 61) which is configured to control the electronic operating element and the electric door lock, wherein the control device is integrated into the vehicle door. Claim(s) 11-14, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Pat No 8,690,204 to Lang et al (Lang). PNG media_image4.png 584 1448 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claims 11, 12 and 20, Lang discloses a vehicle door for a motor vehicle that comprises an electronic operating element (102) disposed on an outside of the vehicle door (48). An electric door lock (98) is openable via the electronic operating element. The electronic operating element (102) is integrated into a handle element (32) for opening the vehicle door, wherein the handle element is movable between a stowed position (fig 3) and an operating position (fig 4). As to claim 13, Lang illustrates that the electronic operating element (96) is disposed in a region of the handle element that is hidden from an outer side and/or a top side of the vehicle door (within the handle body, figs 1 or 2). As to claim 14, Lang discloses that the electronic operating element (102) has a touch sensor device via which a door opening signal for electrically opening the electric door lock is generatable. As to claim 17, Lang discloses that the electronic operating element is activatable by a near-field communication device and the handle is then movable between the stowed position and the operating position by the near-field communication device (col 6 line 22, the sensor 104 can include a receiver that is configured to receive a signal from a handheld device). As to claim 19, Lang discloses that the vehicle door further comprises a control device (100) which is configured to control the electronic operating element and the electric door lock, wherein the control device is integrated into the vehicle door. 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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,701,353 to Patel et al (Patel) in view of US Pat application Publication No 20230243192 to Konrad et al (Konrad) and US Pat Application No 20200263459 to Debroucke et al (Debroucke). Patel fails to disclose that the electronic operating element has a first sensor device for automatically opening the vehicle door by a door drive in an automatic mode and a second sensor device for opening the vehicle door in a servo mode after the door lock has been unlocked. PNG media_image5.png 408 1176 media_image5.png Greyscale Debroucke teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a control interface (handle 42) with a sensor so as to operate a door opener and move the door after the door lock is unlocked. PNG media_image6.png 543 972 media_image6.png Greyscale Konrad teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle (4) with 1st and 2nd sensor devices (8 and 9) that allows the user to either automatically operate a member or in a servo mode by means of manually actuate the handle and with the aid of a drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device describe by Patel with a door opener, as taught by Debroucke, in order to aid in opening the door. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different ways to operate an electronic device by automatically or using a servo mode, as taught by Konrad, in order to allow the user to choose either process with defined force assistance. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,701,353 to Patel et al (Patel) in view of DE 102006018187 to Nagashima et al (Nagashima) and DE 102017006838 to Mielke. Patel fails to disclose that the electronic operating element is disposed on a handle shaft, so that in the stowage position, the electronic operating element is disposed of inside the door and in the operating position, the element is disposed on a region of the sill line. PNG media_image7.png 504 687 media_image7.png Greyscale Nagashima teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a door handle (4) that moves between a stowed position and an operating position that is located by the sill line (8) of the door (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle describe by Patel by the sill line of the door, as taught by Nagashima, in order to provide a clean surface of the door and to position the handle at a more discrete place. PNG media_image8.png 501 738 media_image8.png Greyscale Mielke teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electronic component element (20) located on a handle shaft (34) of a handle (19) that is disposed inside when the handle is in a stowed position and disposed for actuation when the handle is in an operating position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electronic component element describe by Patel on a handle shaft, as taught by Mielke, in order to have the element in a more discrete position without affecting the function of the element when the handle is in the operating position. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,690,204 to Lang et al (Lang) in view of US Pat application Publication No 20230243192 to Konrad et al (Konrad) and US Pat Application No 20200263459 to Debroucke et al (Debroucke). Lang fails to disclose that the electronic operating element has a first sensor device for automatically opening the vehicle door by a door drive in an automatic mode and a second sensor device for opening the vehicle door in a servo mode after the door lock has been unlocked. Debroucke teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a control interface (handle 42) with a sensor so as to operate a door opener and move the door after the door lock is unlocked. Konrad teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle (4) with 1st and 2nd sensor devices (8 and 9) that allows the user to either automatically operate a member or in a servo mode by means of manually actuate the handle and with the aid of a drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device describe by Lang with a door opener, as taught by Debroucke, in order to aid in opening the door. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different ways to operate an electronic device by automatically or using a servo mode, as taught by Konrad, in order to allow the user to choose either process with defined force assistance. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Pat No 8,690,204 to Lang et al (Lang) in view of DE 102006018187 to Nagashima et al (Nagashima) and DE 102017006838 to Mielke. Lang fails to disclose that the electronic operating element is disposed on a handle shaft, so that in the stowage position, the electronic operating element is disposed of inside the door and in the operating position, the element is disposed on a region of the sill line. Nagashima teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a door handle (4) that moves between a stowed position and an operating position that is located by the sill line (8) of the door (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle describe by Lang by the sill line of the door, as taught by Nagashima, in order to provide a clean surface of the door and to position the handle at a more discrete place. Mielke teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electronic component element (20) located on a handle shaft (34) of a handle (19) that is disposed inside when the handle is in a stowed position and disposed for actuation when the handle is in an operating position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electronic component element describe by Lang on a handle shaft, as taught by Mielke, in order to have the element in a more discrete position without affecting the function of the element when the handle is in the operating position. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,690,204 to Lang et al (Lang) in view of US Pat No 8,701,353 to Patel et al (Patel). Lang fails to disclose that the electronic operating element has at least one indicator for at least an operating state or an electrical charge state. Patel teaches that it is well known in the art to provide at least one indicator (20, 22) for at least an operating state or an electrical charge state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device describe by Lang with at least one indicator, as taught by Patel, in order to indicate the user of a state of the device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm. 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (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 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. /Carlos Lugo/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3675 November 12, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 13, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 18, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601209
FLUSH HANDLE ASSEMBLY FOR A VEHICLE DOOR
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598713
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPENING A RECEIVING DEVICE
2y 3m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595692
AUTO FLUSH DOOR HANDLE ASSEMBLY
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584330
LATCH ASSEMBLY WITH REMOVABLE BATTERY
2y 4m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578054
Double Door Retainer
1y 12m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+14.0%)
3y 0m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1247 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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