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 5 June 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
Terminal disclaimer filed 5 June 2026 is recognized and has been approved as of 10 June 2026.
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) 18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck (2021/0062558).
Regarding claim 18, Beck discloses an actuating mechanism for actuating a door of a vehicle, the actuating mechanism comprising:
a manually actuatable handle part (4);
a carrier element (14) fixedly connected to the handle part via an end region of the carrier element;
a bearing (17) via which the handle part with the carrier element is pivotable about an axis of rotation defined by the bearing (Fig.6), relative to a housing structure of the actuating mechanism or relative to a body structure of the vehicle;
a sensor apparatus (6) configured to detect a pivoting movement of the handle part with the carrier element out of a resting position of the handle part;
a biasing element (25)comprising a spring having a first leg (27) and a second leg (28)and a helically coiled region, wherein the helically coiled region of the spring is arranged coaxially to the axis of rotation, wherein the first leg is supported on the carrier element (14 at 30,31) and the second leg is supported on the housing structure (11,29) of the actuating mechanism.
Regarding claim 20, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 18, wherein the biasing element (25) is configured to bias the handle part into its resting position.
Regarding claim 21, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 20, wherein the handle part (4) is configured to transfer a force component (Fig.6) acting on the handle part in a vertical direction into a force component which causes a pivoting of the handle part out of its resting position about the axis (17) of rotation defined by the bearing.
Regarding claim 22, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 20, wherein the handle part (4) is configured to transfer a force component (Fig.6) acting on the handle part in a horizontal direction into a force component which causes a pivoting of the handle part out of its resting position about the axis of rotation defined by the bearing (Fig.6).
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) 1-5 and 7-17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (2021/0062558) in view of Couto Maquieira et al. (US 2023/0081813).
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses an actuating mechanism for actuating a door of a vehicle, the actuating mechanism (3) comprising:
a manually actuatable handle part (4);
a carrier element (14) fixedly connected to the handle part via an end region of the carrier element (Fig.7);
a bearing (17) via which the handle part with the carrier element is about an axis of rotation defined by the bearing, relative to a housing structure of the actuating mechanism or relative to a body structure of the vehicle (Fig.6,7);
a sensor apparatus (6), wherein the sensor apparatus is configured to detect a pivoting movement of the handle part (3) with the carrier element (4) out of a resting position of the handle part ([0031] l.12-17) and
a biasing element (25) configured to bias the handle part into a resting position (Fig.6), wherein the biasing element comprises a biased leg spring having a first leg (27) and a second leg (28) and a helically coiled region (portion between 27 and 28 Fig.6),.
Beck does not disclose: the helically coiled region is arranged concentrically to the axis of rotation
Couto Maquieira et al. teaches biasing element (64) helically coiled region is arranged concentrically to the axis of rotation for the purpose of providing a configuration centered and guided around a cylindrical sleeve in a concise package and mechanically appropriate for handle function.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Beck with the helically coiled region is arranged concentrically to the axis of rotation as taught by Couto Maquieira et al. for the expected benefit of providing a configuration centered and guided around a cylindrical sleeve in a concise package and mechanically appropriate for handle function.
Regarding claim 2, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1,
wherein the handle part (4) comprises a lever element and is configured so to transfer a force component acting on the handle part in a vertical direction (Fig.6,7 position of handle 4), as well as a force component acting on the handle part (in a horizontal direction (Fig.6,7 position of handle 4), into a force component which causes a pivoting of the handle part with the carrier element out of the resting position of the handle part about the axis of rotation defined by the bearing (17).
Regarding claim 3, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 2,
the handle part (4), further comprising a first region extending in a direction that is generally both vertical and parallel to an outer skin of the vehicle (Fig.6,7), and a second region extending in a generally horizontal direction, the second region being connected to the end region of the carrier element (Fig.6,7).
Regarding claim 4, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the bearing (17) is configured in a region in which the second region of the handle part (4) is connected to the end region of the carrier element (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 5, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the axis of rotation defined by the bearing (17) lies in a region of an intersection between a straight line extending along the region of the handle part extending in the horizontal direction and a straight line extending along the carrier element Fig.6.
Claim 7 Canceled.
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the first leg of the biasing element is supported on the carrier element (31) and the second leg is supported on the housing structure of the actuating mechanism or on a body structure of the vehicle (11,29).
Regarding claim 9, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the actuating mechanism further comprises a stop (29) for limiting a pivoting movement of the handle part (4) about the axis of rotation defined by the bearing (17), wherein the pivoting movement is limited to a maximum of 20 degrees.
Regarding claim 10, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the sensor apparatus (6) is configured so as to detect a pivoting movement ([0031], of the handle part (4) relative to the body structure (29) of the vehicle and to generate an electrical signal ([0031], detection, upon detection opens) for unlocking the vehicle door (2a).
Regarding claim 11, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 10, wherein the handle part (4) is operatively connected to the carrier element (14) in such a way that a movement of the handle part that is generated upon a manual actuation of the handle part is or can be transferred to the sensor apparatus (6) in order to trigger it ([0031], detection, upon detection opens).
Regarding claim 12, Beck discloses a door (2a) of a vehicle having an actuating mechanism (3) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism (3) according to claim 1, wherein the bearing (17), is a pivot bearing.
Regarding claim 14, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism (3) according to claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation is a substantially horizontally extending axis of rotation defined by the bearing (17, Fig.6).
Regarding claim 15, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism (3) according to claim 1, wherein the sensor apparatus (6) is a microswitch ([0031]).
Claim 16, canceled.
Regarding claim 17, Beck discloses the door (2a) according to claim 12, wherein the actuating mechanism (3) is arranged on or in a region of an A, B, or C pillar (Fig.1) of a body structure (2a) of the vehicle.
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 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (2021/0062558).
Regarding claim 6, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1, elements are formed integrally from a plastic material ([0020]).
Beck does not discuss: the handle part and the carrier element are formed integrally from a plastic material.
Beck teaches plastic elements for the purpose of material selection for mechanical properties strength, durability, sliding contact.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify elements of Beck with the handle part and the carrier element are formed integrally from a plastic material as taught by plastic elements explicitly discussed by Beck for the expected benefit of material selection for mechanical properties strength, durability, sliding contact
Regarding claim 19, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 18, wherein the actuating mechanism further comprises a stop configured to limit the pivoting movement of the handle part to a maximum angle relative to its resting position.
Beck discloses the claimed invention except for a maximum of 20 degrees relative to its resting position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a maximum of 20 degrees relative to its resting position, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure taken from Beck (2021/0062558)
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