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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement of 12/10/2024 has been received and reviewed.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, “a first and second levers” should be “the first and second levers”.
Appropriate correction 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 11-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inner side" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective chamfers" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first arm and the second arm of the door handle" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first arm and the second arm of the door handle" in line 2-3. It is unclear as to what is being said here. The only arms mentioned in the claims and specs are the arms of the cover. The spec has the same language as claim 13 but besides that, there is no other mention of these arms of the door handle. Is what is being meant here that the first branch of the U comprising the first and second arms of the cover? The drawings do not support this. Examiner will interpret the claim as reciting the first arm of the cover on the first branch and the second arm of the cover on the second branch.
Claims 12 and 14-21 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 15 recites a clipping means for fastening the cover to the structure. This will be interpreted as the first and second hook as defined in paragraph 0042 of the specifications.
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) 11-15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220018168 to Cervone.
Regarding claim 11, Cervone discloses:
A vehicle door handle (10) configured to be fastened to a bracket (14) fixed on an inner side of a vehicle door panel (fig 3), the door handle being configured for moving between a retracted position (fig 2) in which the door handle is flush with an outer side of the vehicle door panel and a deployed position (fig 3), the door handle comprising: a structure (40) comprising a first sleeve (25) configured to be fastened to a first lever (30) of the bracket and a second sleeve (27) configured to be fastened to a second lever (28) of the bracket; and a cover (38) configured to be fastened to the structure, the cover comprising a first arm (left arm seen in fig 14) configured to cover the first sleeve (fig 19) and a second arm ( right arm seen in fig 14) configured to cover the second sleeve (fig 19, see paragraph 0035), wherein the first arm comprises a first hook (left hook seen in fig 16) configured to be introduced in a first slot (slot where left hook is inserted, see figs 16 and 17) arranged in a wall of the first sleeve (fig 16) to ensure the alignment of the first arm with the first sleeve and the second arm comprises a second hook (right hook seen in figs 16 and 17) configured to be introduced in a second slot (slot that the second hook is inserted into) arranged in a wall of the second sleeve (see figs 16 and 17) to ensure the alignment of the second arm with the second sleeve, the inner side of the wall associated with the first slot of the first sleeve and with the second slot of the second sleeve defining a chamfer (chamfer C, see figure produced below) with an angle comprised between 20° and 60° (45), and wherein the first hook and the second hook have a shape complementary (fig 16) with the respective chamfers (chamfers at the openings of 25 and 27, see fig 16) to ease the introduction of the first and second hooks within the respective first and second slots (figs 16 and 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Cervone discloses:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the angle of the chamfer is 45° (see angle A produced in the figure above).
Regarding claim 13, Cervone discloses:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the cover has a U-shape cross section (fig 14) with a first branch (left branch) of the U comprising the first arm and the second arm of the door handle (see 112 rejection above, the first arm is on the left branch and the second arm is on the right branch) and a second branch (right branch) opposing the first branch, the first and second branches of the U extending towards each other (left branch and right branch extend towards each other from the extremes) with an angle comprised between 5 and 30° (see angle A2 in the figure produced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
203
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Cervone discloses:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 13, wherein the first branch of the U is longer than the second branch (left branch is longer than the right one, see fig 14).
Regarding claim 15, Cervone discloses:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the structure and the cover comprise clipping means for fastening the cover to the structure (left and right hooks, see claim interpretation above).
Regarding claim 17, Cervone discloses:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the structure comprises guiding rails (left walls of 25 and 27 as seen in fig 16) configured to guide the hooks of the cover towards the slots during assembly (figs 16 and 17).
Regarding claim 19, Cervone discloses:
A vehicle door handle (10) assembly comprising: a bracket (14) configured to be fixed on the inner side of a vehicle door panel (fig 3); and the vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the bracket comprises a first (30) and a second levers (28) configured to receive the first and second sleeves of the structure of the door handle (fig 6).
Regarding claim 20, Cervone discloses:
A method for assembling the vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, the method comprising the following steps: positioning the cover next to the structure with the first and second hooks positioned respectively in front of the first and second slots; sliding the cover along the structure to introduce the first and second hooks of the cover in the respective first and second slots of the structure; and clipping the cover to the structure (see paragraph 0035).
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.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220018168 to Cervone.
Regarding claims 20-21, although Cervone doesn’t explicitly disclose the method of claims 20-21, Cervone teaches the structure necessary for such method as rejected in claims 11-15 above. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the invention of Cervone in the method of claims 20-21.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220018168 to Cervone in view of US 20200173207 to Shimizu.
Regarding claim 16, Cervone does not explicitly disclose:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the cover is glued to the structure.
However, Shimizu teaches that it is well known in the art to glue (58) a cover (38) to a structure (24). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shimizu into Cervone at least because doing so would provide additional security by adding an additional fastening means, thereby reducing risk of unwanted separation.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220018168 to Cervone in view of EP 3469175 to Low.
Regarding claim 18, Cervone does not explicitly disclose:
The vehicle door handle in accordance with claim 11, wherein the cover is made of plastic material.
However, Low teaches that it is well known in the art to have a cover (4) made from plastic material (page 4 paragraph 5 of attached translation). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Low into Cervone at least because doing so would provide a inexpensive solution to providing a cover (see page 4, paragraph 5 of attached translation of Low).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675