DETAILED ACTION
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 the claims filed on 01/22/2026.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP23206735, filed on 01/23/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected because:
PNG
media_image1.png
527
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 5, “a slot provided to be received in a portion of the door panel” is objected and seems that it should read --a slot provided to receive a portion of the door panel--. Examiner notes that par. 64 discloses the slots 5a2 and 5b2 receives the portion 23 of the door panel. Additionally, figure 5 also shows the portion 23 received into slots 5a2 and 5b2.
Examiner notes that no new matter issues set forth for this claim as par. 64 also discloses “The portion 23 of the door panel 2 receiving the slot 5a2, 5b2 of a corresponding lateral portion 5a, 5b” which provides support to the amendment in claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benard et al. (US 6518883) (hereinafter “Benard”).
Claim 1
(Benard teaches) A door structure (figure 1) for a motor vehicle (summary in specification discusses the invention is directed to a motor vehicle), comprising:
a door panel (12);
a door handle (18) arranged on a first side (external side) of the door panel to perform an opening/closing operation of the door structure (figure 1);
fixing means (Annotated figure 1 below) extending at least partially on a second side (internal side of the door panel) of the door panel and opposite to the first side, wherein the fixing means comprises at least two longitudinal portions (Annotated figure 1 below) each secured at a first end (end of the longitudinal portions closer to the handle) to the door handle, and at a second end (Partial Annotated figure 1 below) to the door panel, the second end extending along a surface of the door panel and secured to the surface of the door panel (Partial Annotated figure 1 below showing the surfaces); and
a reinforcement structure (14) configured to secure the at least two longitudinal portions to each other (figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
513
956
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
618
813
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 1
Claim 2
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 1, wherein the reinforcement structure comprises at least two lateral portions connected together by a central portion (all three portions shown in Annotated figure 1 above), each lateral portion being configured to receive at least partially a corresponding one of longitudinal portions of the fixing means (lines 54-59 of col. 2 and figure 1).
Claim 4
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 2, wherein each lateral portion of the reinforcement structure comprises a reinforcing portion (Annotated figure 1 above) formed by a reinforcing bracket (40; note that ‘by’ was interpreted as --next to; close to-- such that the reinforcing portions are formed next to the bracket 40) designed to sandwich a corresponding one of the longitudinal portions of the fixing means between said reinforcement structure and the door panel (the reinforcing portions ‘sandwich’ the longitudinal portions between the reinforcement structure and the door panel once all parts are assembled).
Claim 5
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 2, wherein each lateral portion has a slot provided to be received in a portion of the door panel (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) below).
PNG
media_image4.png
736
1173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 1 (II)
Claim 6
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 5, wherein the reinforcement structure allows access to an opening (26 and 32) for attaching the longitudinal portions to the door panel if the reinforcement structure with the slots is attached on the portion of the door panel at a predetermined position (the predetermined position aligning the reinforcement structure with the openings 26 and 32).
Claim 7
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 5, wherein the portion of the door panel receiving the slot of a corresponding one of the lateral portions corresponds to a portion of a contour (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) above) of an opening (26 and 32) of the door panel.
Claim 8
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 2, wherein the reinforcement structure forms a U-shape (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) above), of which the at least two lateral portions form arms of the U-shape (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) above).
Claim 9
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 1, wherein the reinforcement structure is in one piece (figure 1).
Claim 10
(Benard teaches) A vehicle (not shown but discussed in lines 4-8 of col. 1, lines 16-20 of col. 2, and lines 38-42 of col. 2 as non-limiting examples) comprising the door structure according to Claim 1 (see rejection in claim 1 above).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benard, as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-10 above, in view of Kudoh et al. (US 8966826) (hereinafter “Kudoh”).
Claim 3
(Benard teaches) The door structure according to Claim 2, wherein each longitudinal portion of the fixing means is at least partially received through a corresponding one of the lateral portions of the reinforcement structure (Annotated figure 1 above).
Benard does disclose at least one lateral portion having a ring, shown in Annotated figure 1 above, to receive a corresponding longitudinal portion but fails to disclose the other lateral portion to have a ring.
(However, Kudoh teaches) wherein each longitudinal portion (longitudinal portions of 2b and 2c; Kudoh figure 3) of a fixing means (2b and 2c) is at least partially received through a ring (ring structure forming 3b and 3c) of a corresponding one of a lateral portions (portions forming 3b and 3c) of a reinforcement structure (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the one opening of the lateral portion of Benard such that it is a ring as taught by Kudoh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the longitudinal portion with a surrounding coverage by the lateral portion thus it is fully secured, snug, and fitted in with the reinforcement structure thereby it is less likely to be pulled out from the reinforcement structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments directed to the drawing and specification objections have been considered.
Applicant’s amendments directed to the claim 112(b) rejections have been considered and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. This is in response to applicant’s arguments on pages 4-8 of the Remarks section.
Regarding “the rear feet 30 (the alleged "longitudinal portion) of Benard are part of the handle and extend vertically from opposing ends of the handle toward the alleged "reinforcement structure." The alleged "second end" of the rear foot is vertical to the door panel, rather than extending along a surface of the door panel”, this is found not persuasive as there are many surfaces in the door panel, and the mapped longitudinal portions in the rejection above extend at least in the surface shown in the partial annotated figure 1 above.
Regarding “in order to be mounted rotatably on the mounting 14" (lines 54 to 59 column 2). Thus, the projection 24 (the alleged "longitudinal portions") is mounted to the mounting 14 (the alleged " reinforcement structure"), rather than to the surface of the door panel as claimed”, note that the claim merely recites ‘the second end…secured to the surface of the door panel’, which ‘secure’ can be interpreted as -- Not likely to fail or give way; stable-- (see definition below) as such the claim merely requires the second end to be stable to the surface. Additionally, the claim does not recite that the second end is not nor cannot be mounted to the reinforcement structure.
Applicant also argues “Further, according to paragraphs [0053] and [0054], the reinforcement structure is configured to secure the two longitudinal portions 4a and 4b to reduce the bending of these longitudinal portions when the door handle 3 is operated”, however this functional language is not claimed. Regardless, even if this is recited in the claim, Benard teaches and meets this functional limitation as such this was found unpersuasive.
Regarding “Regarding Claim 4, Benard does not disclose a reinforcing bracket of the reinforcement structure. The rear-facing identified in figure 1 of Benard by the examiner cannot be considered a plate or a bracket. The rear-facing is only the rear surface of the handle mounting 14, but not a plate or a bracket”, this is moot as this argument is directed to the previous interpretation of the reinforcing bracket.
Regarding “In addition, the rear-facing identified in the figure 1 (the alleged "reinforcement structure") is not designed to sandwich the rear foot 30 and the projection 24 (the alleged "two longitudinal portions") between the rear-facing and the door panel 2”, examiner notes that ‘sandwich’ seems to be an informal term and, more importantly, it is not properly set forth nor defined in applicant’s disclosure as such examiner is interpreting this term similar to --between--. This argument is unpersuasive as this is met by the Benard in the rejection above and it is not clear what does applicant attempting to argue with the term ‘sandwich’.
Applicant also argues “Regarding Claim 5, the examiner identifies two parts of the door panel that receive the handle mounting 14. However, nothing in Benard discloses these two parts”, examiner notes that claim 5 recites “a portion of the door panel” and ‘portion’ is extremely broad (see definition below).
Regarding, “However, the alleged "two longitudinal portions" of Kudoh (the hinge leg 2b and the operation leg 2) do not comprise a second end secured to the alleged "door panel" 1”, see response to this argument above.
Regarding “Further, the examiner considers that the front opening 3b and the rear opening 3c of Kudoh disclose the ring of each lateral portion. However, the two openings of Kudoh identified are not ring-shaped as clearly shown in FIG. 3 (reproduced below) of Kudoh”, note that ‘ring’ was interpreted as --any object or mark that is circular in shape--, the claim does not require a perfect circle as such this was found not persuasive.
PNG
media_image5.png
196
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
PNG
media_image6.png
124
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Source: Abused, Confused, & Misused Words by Mary Embree Copyright © 2007, 2013 by Mary Embree
PNG
media_image7.png
125
715
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Source: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Conclusion
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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634