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 .
Double Patenting
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,882. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a door assembly for a motor vehicle, comprising: a door mounted relative to an opening in a body of the motor vehicle such that the door is moveable between a fully closed position and a fully open position; and a fixed door handle projecting outward from an exterior surface of the door, and wherein the fixed door handle includes a switch assembly configured to generate an electric signal when pressed; and a method, comprising: activating one or both of a door presenter assembly and a latch assembly of a door in response to a signal generated by a switch assembly, wherein a fixed door handle projecting outward from an exterior surface of the door includes the switch assembly.
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) 1-3, 14-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harter (U.S. 9,156,335).
Regarding claim 1, Harter teaches a door assembly for a motor vehicle, comprising: a door (12) mounted relative to an opening in a body (24) of the motor vehicle (see fig 1) such that the door (12) is moveable between a fully closed position and a fully open position; and a fixed (column 3, lines 28-29) door handle (10) projecting outward from an exterior surface of the door (fig 1), and wherein the fixed (column 3, lines 28-29) door handle (10) includes a switch assembly (98) configured to generate an electric signal (to microswitch 102) when pressed (column 6, lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 2, Harter teaches the door assembly of claim 1. Harter further teaches wherein: the door (12) includes trim (30), and the fixed door handle (10) projects outward from the trim (30, see fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Harter teaches the door assembly of claim 2. Harter further teaches wherein the trim (30) is a belt molding (column 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 14, Harter teaches the door assembly of claim 1. Harter further teaches wherein the door (12) is free of pivotable exterior door handles (column 3, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 15, Harter teaches the door assembly of claim 1. Harter further teaches further comprising a latch assembly configured to selectively lock and unlock the door (12), wherein the latch assembly is configured to unlock the door in response to the electric signal (102, column 7, lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 19, Harter teaches a method comprising: activating one or both of a door presenter assembly and a latch assembly (described in column 7, lines 10-14) of a door (12) in response to a signal generated by a switch assembly (98), wherein a fixed door handle (10) projecting outward from an exterior surface of the door (see fig 1) includes the switch assembly (98, as seen in fig 8 and described in column 6 lines 89-61).
Regarding claim 20, Harter teaches the method of claim 19. Harter further teaches further comprising, after the activating step, manually moving the door to a fully open position (by user applying force F3 seen in fig 8) using the fixed door handle (10) by pulling on the fixed door handle (10) and by applying a force in a same location as in the activating step (to inside of handle 10).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witte (U.S. 2017/0260778).
Regarding claim 18, Witte teaches a door assembly for a motor vehicle, comprising: a door (1) mounted relative to an opening in a body of the motor vehicle (as seen in figs 1a and 1b, and described in [0038]) such that the door (1) is moveable between a fully closed position (as seen in fig 1a) and a fully open position (opening described in [0023]); and a fixed door handle (as seen in figs 1a and 2, described as fixed in [0005]) projecting outward from an exterior surface of the door (as seen in fig 1A and 2), and wherein the fixed door handle includes a switch assembly (7) configured to generate an electric signal when pressed (described in [0043]), wherein the fixed door handle includes a base section (on door-side of opening 4 as seen in fig 2) and a top section (2), and wherein a top of the base section includes a recess configured to receive the top section (as seen in fig 2, base section includes a recess for top section 2 to fit inside).
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.
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) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harter (U.S. 9,156,335) in view of Leonardi (U.S. 2020/0011096).
Regarding claim 16, Harter teaches the door assembly of claim 1. While Harter teaches a door (12) and an electric signal (102), it is silent as to a door presenter assembly configured to move the door from a fully closed position to a partially open position in response to the electric signal.
Leonardi teaches a door presenter assembly (22’), configured to move the door from a fully closed position to a partially open position in response to an electric signal (as taught in [0055]).
Harter and Leonardi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle door handles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harter to incorporate the teachings of Leonardi and provide a door presenter assembly that moves the door from a fully closed position to a partially open position in response to an electric signal. Doing so would assist the user in opening the door by beginning the process for them, so less force will need to be applied to the door handle to fully open the door.
Regarding claim 17, Harter teaches the door assembly of claim 1. Harter further teaches wherein, in response to the signal from the switch assembly (98), the door (12) is configured to unlock (column 7, lines 10-14) the door. Harter is silent as to the door (12) being configured to move to a partially open position in response to the signal from the switch assembly (98).
Leonardi teaches a door presenter assembly (22’), configured to move the door to a partially open position in response to an electric signal (as taught in [0055]).
Harter and Leonardi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle door handles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harter to incorporate the teachings of Leonardi and provide a door presenter assembly that moves the door from a fully closed position to a partially open position in response to an electric signal. Doing so would assist the user in opening the door by beginning the process for them, so less force will need to be applied to the door handle to fully open the door.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,619,079, US 11,554,646, US 2022/0213722 (all of which teach fixed door handles for vehicles).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631