DETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: recitation of what is “at least substantially in a vertical direction, at least substantially parallel and at least substantially in the horizontal direction” is without a frame of reference necessary to establish what is or is not required by the applicant. “at least substantially” is arguably so broad as to be unclear what is required by the applicant. As written the claim provides no objective quantified limitation defining the metes and bounds of the claim. For purposes of examination, broad interpretation is applied. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (claims 2-17 by dependency) and claim 11, line 6 and line 4 respectively that which “can be pivoted about an axis of rotation” and “is or can be transferred” is not required. The recitation of what "can be" is indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is a mere possibility that is not required.
Regarding claims 2 and 3 it is unclear what the applicant requires in the recitation “the handle part is designed a least partially or regionally as a lever element”. As limitation cannot be determined from the claim language as written, what is or is not required to be designed at least partially or regionally, broad interpretation will be applied until clarification is made by the applicant.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
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) 1-5 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck (2021/0062558).
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 can be pivoted 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); and
a sensor apparatus (6), wherein the sensor apparatus is configured so as 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).
Regarding claim 2, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1,
wherein the handle part (4) is designed at least partially or regionally as 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,
wherein the handle part (4), which is at least partially or regionally configured as a lever element (Fig.6), comprises a region extending at least substantially in a vertical direction extending at least substantially parallel to an outer skin of the vehicle, and a region extending at least substantially in a horizontal direction, which is 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 region of the handle part (4) extending at least substantially in the horizontal direction transitions into 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.
Regarding claim 7, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the actuating mechanism further comprises a biasing element (25) for biasing the handle part (4) into its resting position (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism according to claim 7, wherein the biasing element (25) comprises a biased leg spring having two legs (28,27) and a helically coiled region (25, Fig.6), wherein the helically coiled region of the leg spring is arranged coaxially(Fig.6) or concentrically to the axis of rotation, and wherein one leg (27,31, Fig.6) is supported on the carrier element (14) and another leg (28,11, Fig.6) is supported on the housing structure of the actuating mechanism or on a body structure (11,29) of the vehicle.
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 preferably (not required) 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 a 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), in 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]).
Regarding claim 16, Beck discloses the actuating mechanism (3) according to claim 7, wherein the biasing element (25) is a spring ([0034]).
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 is 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
Double Patenting
Claim 1-5, 7-17 of application(US 18/973,397) is patentably indistinct from claims 1,2, 6, 12, 13 and 15 of Application No. (US 2026/0022596). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,2, 6, 12, 13 and 15 of Application of copending Application No. (US 2026/0022596). (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the claimed structure is the same as follows
Instant claim 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 handle part, carrier element, bearing, housing or body, sensor apparatus directly corresponds with (US 2026/0022596) claim 1, actuator, bearing, housing claim 2 carrier, body sensor apparatus
Instant Claim 2, 3, 4, 5 lever, (US 2026/0022596) actuator.
Instant Claim 7, biasing element (US 2026/0022596) claim biasing element
Instant Claim 8, 16 spring, leg, (US 2026/0022596) two way spring element, first springle, second spring leg double wound torsion.
Instant Claim 12 actuating mechanism (US 2026/0022596) actuating mechanism
Instant Claim 15, microswitch (US 2026/0022596) switch.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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