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
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 2 January 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s recitation of “different is devoid of limitation beyond merely requiring any two identifiable entities which would satisfy ”different”. Any two entities occupy space that is necessarily “different”. The argument is unpersuasive.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stapf (US 2010/0171324).
Regarding claim 1, Stapf (discloses a method for producing an interior door handle arrangement (abstract), wherein the interior door handle arrangement includes a housing and an actuating section which is movably arranged on the housing, wherein the actuating section is formed by a handle lever, wherein the handle section has a carrier section ([0016] first plastic) made from a first plastic and a decoration section (second plastic, [0016]) made from a second plastic which is different (any two identifiable things two component; Abstract are “different” in some way) from the first plastic and connected to the carrier section in an integrally joined manner (forming single element 10; Fig.1), wherein the handle lever is produced using a multi-component injection molding process (abstract, by two-component injection molding into one unit).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure taken from Stapf (US 2010/0171324)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapf (US 2010/0171324) in view of Wagner et al. (US 2020/0157699).
Regarding claim 16; Stapf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second plastic has a color that is different than a color of the first plastic.
Stapf does not disclose: second plastic has a color that is different than a color of the first plastic
Wagner et al. teaches adding colorant to plastic for the purpose of adding suitable antioxidants, color stabilizers and agents for increasing resistance to ultraviolet light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Stapf with second plastic has a color that is different than a color of the first plastic as taught by Wagner et al. for the expected benefit of adding suitable antioxidants, color stabilizers and agents for increasing resistance to ultraviolet light.
Regarding claim 17; Stapf as modified by Wagner et al. discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the method involves producing the carrier section of the first plastic in one injection molding shot ([0016]; Stapf) and producing the decoration section of the second plastic in another injection molding shot (two component injection molding; Stapf).
Regarding claim 18; Stapf as modified by Wagner et al. discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the second plastic is present.
Stapf discloses the claimed invention except for the second plastic has a thickness of less than 1 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the second plastic has a thickness of less than 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19; Stapf as modified by Wagner et al. discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the one injection molding shot takes place prior to the another injection molding shot ([0016]; Stapf).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yonemochi et al. (US 2006/00767712) in view of Stapf (US 2010/0171324) discloses a method for producing an interior door handle arrangement except for: a magnet is applied to a surface of the carrier section in a still flowable state of the plastic, causing ferromagnetic metal particles in the first plastic approach the surface.
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.
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 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