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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims of 04/30/226 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Amended claims are rejected as given below.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kamimura et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2017-0362855).
For claim 1, Kamimura et al. disclose, in Figures 1-13, a vehicle handle to be attached to a door of a vehicle such that the vehicle handle is operable to be pulled out, the vehicle handle comprising:
a handle body portion (includes 16, 56, 38, 70A, 70B) having an operation opening (33) for a cylinder lock (30, 64) to be attached to the door (Para. [0004, 0033]); and
a cap (38, 70A, 70B) configured to close the operation opening (33), wherein
an elastic locking portion (42a, 42c, 42d) is provided on one of the cap (38) and the handle body portion,
a locked portion (19a) is provided on the other of the cap and the handle body portion (16), and
the elastic locking portion (42a, 42c) is translationally moved along a door front surface in accordance with an attachment and detachment of the cap (38) with respect to the operation opening (33), and being elastically locked to and unlocked from the locked portion (The step portion 42d of the elastic locking portion resiliently engage the locking hole 41, during the locking and unlocking operation of the cap 38. The resilient movement of the elastic locking portion is translational along the surface of the door. Para. [0038].), and
the handle body portion (16, 56) is attached to the door of the vehicle such that the handle body portion is operable to be pulled out (Para. [0026]. Figures 4-5.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2017-0362855) alone.
For claim 4, Kaminura et al. discloses the vehicle handle according to claim 1, except for wherein a locking surface of the locked portion is formed by a sloping surface inclined forward and downward, and the elastic locking portion is pressed-contact with the locking surface in a state of being engaged to the locked portion.
Kamimura et al. discloses locked portion 19a with sloping locking surface on the handle body portion 16, and the elastic locking portion (42a, 42c, 42d) on the cap 38. When cap 38 is pressed into the operation opening 43, the elastic locking portion is pressed-contact with the sloping locking surface of the locked portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have locked portion formed in the cap 38, and the elastic locking portion on the handle body portion 16, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. One skill in the art would realize that reversal of parts would yield the expected result of latching of the components for the intended environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Claims 2-3 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.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Beck (U.S. Pub. App. 2016-0145910), McWilliams (U.S. Pub. App. 2014-0125071), and Bartels (U.S. Pub. App. 2017-292297).
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 NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights