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.
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) 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara (EP2511452).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a door handle mechanism for providing electrical and mechanical release functions to a latch, the door handle mechanism comprising:
a fixed base (23);
a slider (64) slidingly retained on the fixed base;
a lever (27) pivotally attached to the fixed base;
an electrical switch (26) coupled to the fixed base;
wherein rotation of the lever in a first direction through a first range of travel actuates the electrical switch for providing an electrical release signal for an electrical release function to release the latch (abstract);
wherein additional movement of the lever in the first direction through a second range of travel mechanically actuates the slider and causes sliding movement of the slider relative to the base for providing a mechanical release function to release the latch (Abstract).
Note: recitation of direction is relative terminology, where, as is claimed here without a frame of reference is taken broadly rather than indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 1, wherein the lever (27) includes a handle portion (56) that moves upwardly in the first direction of the lever.
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 2, wherein the lever (27) includes an actuator portion (27a) that moves downwardly in the first direction to actuate the switch.
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 3, wherein the actuator portion (27a) includes a contact feature (61, 24) disposed adjacent to the switch (26), where the downward movement of the actuator portion moves the contact feature away from the switch and out of contact with the switch to actuate the switch.
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 3, wherein the actuator portion includes a cam surface (surface of 61) facing a corresponding cam surface of the slider, wherein rotation of the lever (27) through the second range of travel contacts the cam surface of the actuation portion against the cam surface of the slider with and shifts the slider relative to the fixed base of the lever (Abstract line 5-8).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 5, wherein the cam surfaces (61, surface) are spaced apart (when relaxed non-actuated state there is clearance) during the first range of travel and contact each other at an end of the first range of travel, and the slider (64) moves following the first range of travel of the lever.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 1, wherein the lever pivots (at 58) relative to the fixed base through the first and second range of travel, wherein the upward movement of the handle portion(56) and the downward movement of the actuation portion are part of the same kinematic movement of the lever in the first direction.
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 1, wherein movement of the slider causes movement of a cable ([0002], Fig.2 cable) end for pulling on a mechanical actuation cable to mechanically actuate the latch.
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 8, wherein the slider (64) moves linearly relative to the base (62 slotted guide hole) for pulling the cable ([0002], Fig.2 cable) end linearly.
Regarding claim 12, Fujiwara discloses a method of actuating a door handle for providing both electrical and mechanical release functionality to a latch, the method comprising:
actuating a lever (27) relative to a fixed base (23) in a first direction through a first range of travel;
in response thereto, actuating an electrical switch (26) for providing an electrical signal to the latch (abstract);
actuating the lever further relative to the fixed base in the first direction through a second range of travel beyond the first range of travel (abstract);
in response thereto, contacting a slider (64), which is slidingly coupled to the fixed base, with the lever and shifting the slider relative to the fixed base, wherein the slider is configured to pull an attached cable ([0002], Fig.2 cable) for providing a mechanical release function to the latch (abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the first direction (Fig.3) is a pivotal direction relative to the fixed base (23).
Regarding claim 14, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the lever includes a handle portion (27a) that moves upward in the first direction.
Note: recitation of direction is relative terminology, where, as is claimed here without a frame of reference is taken broadly rather than indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the lever (27) includes an actuation portion (27a) that moves downward in the first direction.
Note: recitation of direction is relative terminology, where, as is claimed here without a frame of reference is taken broadly rather than indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the actuation portion (27a) includes a contact feature (61, 24) that moves downwardly away from the electrical switch (26) during the first range of travel.
Regarding claim 17, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the actuation portion includes a cam surface (surface of 61) that moves toward contact with a corresponding cam surface of the slider (64) during the first range of travel.
Regarding claim 18, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the cam surface of the actuation portion (27a) contacts the corresponding cam surface of the slider (64) following the first range of travel, and forces the slider linearly (along 62 slotted guide hole) relative to the base (23) during the second range of travel.
Regarding claim 19, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the lever (27)is biased (28) against the first direction in both the first range of travel and the second range of travel 9Fig.3).
Regarding claim 20, Fujiwara discloses the method of claim 19, wherein a spring element (28) disposed between the lever (27) and the fixed base provides a bias against the first direction of the lever during the first range of travel, and the slider (64) applies an additional biasing force against the first direction of the lever during the second range of travel.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (EP2511452).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 1, wherein the fixed base (23) of the door handle is configured to be fixed in a vehicle door.
Fujiwara discloses the claimed invention except for door handle is configured to be fixed in an arm rest of a vehicle door.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify door handle is configured to be fixed in an arm rest of a vehicle door since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Fujiwara discloses the door handle of claim 10, wherein at least a portion of the fixed base (23) is configured to be embedded (element 23 must merely exist to be capable of being embedded) within the arm rest and covered, such that a handle portion (56) of the lever is exposed and accessible by a vehicle occupant.
Note: the scope of the invention is limited to “a door handle” the arm rest is where the doorhandle is intended to be used. Rather than failure to further limit claim 10, the claim construction merely requires elements to exist to satisfy the intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 1 July 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In response to Applicant’s arguments review of the abstract of Fujiwara discloses a switch connected to electrical actuator from nonoperation to a first operation position, further the mechanical operation transmits a latch release position to a second operating position. The lever is attached to a slide element. The Applicant has failed to claim structure and function that is neither structural nor functionally distinct over what is taught or suggested by the prior art of record. The applicant does not specifically require a defined sequence of events rather more generally describes a slide element. It is reasonable to conclude that the applicant has failed to distinguish over the structure and function that is taught by the prior art.
The applicant appears to argue a sequence of events, however the applicant argues that which is not positively recited. Any occurrence of the claimed functions is sufficient to disclose the claims as currently written.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Applicant should consider any criticality of invention that the instant application possesses that the prior art does not contemplate. At present, the claimed invention does not appear to distinguish itself over the prior art of record. The argument is unpersuasive.
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.
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 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