DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al., US Patent Application Publication 2021/0332619A1.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses essentially all of the claimed invention, including a door handle device comprising a base (see figure 11), so as to define a recess facing an opening formed in a door panel of a vehicle door, disposed inside the door panel; a door opening operation detection unit (including 16) disposed in the recess, the door opening operation detection unit configured to detect a user's operation for electrically releasing a latch mechanism that holds the vehicle door in a closed state in an openable manner with respect to the vehicle body; and a handle at least partly disposed on an outside of the door panel adjacent to the opening.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses the claimed invention except explicit teaching of (a) the handle being disposed on an outer side of the door panel and the handle pivotably supported by the base, the handle connected to the latch mechanism through a traction member, the handle configured to switch the latch mechanism to a release state through the traction member by an outward pivot operation, and/or (b) the handle is a bezel-type handle disposed so as to be along and adjacent to an opening edge of the opening and provided with an opening communicating with the recess at a center. Regarding (a), Peterson teaches an outward pivoting handle in the embodiment of figures 22 and 23. Further, regarding both (a) and (b), the examiner serves Official Notice that providing a vehicle door handle disposed on an outer side of the door panel, and being pivotably supported by a base, with the handle connected to the latch mechanism through a traction member, the handle configured to switch the latch mechanism to a release state through the traction member by an outward pivot operation, as well as the handle being a bezel-type handle disposed so as to be along and adjacent to an opening edge of the opening and provided with an opening communicating with the recess at a center, are both generally very old, established, and well known concepts in the art of vehicle handles, for providing effective means of operating the handle and door latch in the known fashion, as well as providing aesthetic appeal. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Peterson in these ways, for the purpose of providing effective means of operating the handle and door latch in the known fashion, as well as providing aesthetic appeal.
Regarding claims 2-9, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims of record have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. The examiner has adjusted the rejection to address the newly added claim language, clarifying such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights