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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicants amendment filed on 8/13/26.
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, 7, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19642698 to Schwab et al (Schwab) in view of US Pat No 4,895,403 to Osenkowski.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 17, Schwab discloses a safety device for a vehicle door handle assembly. The safety device comprises a support (29); a door handle structure (1) configured to move with respect to the support between a rest handle position and an active handle position allowing opening of the vehicle door; and a blocking element (28) configured to move with respect to the support between a blocking position in which the blocking element prevents the door handle structure from moving with respect to the support, and an “emergency” position in which the blocking element allows the door handle structure to move with respect to the support from the rest handle position to the active handle position, for example when the door handle structure is subject to a pulling or pushing strain.
The blocking element comprises first guiding means (31) configured to cooperate with complementary first guiding means of the support to allow a translation movement of the blocking element with respect to the support along a translation axis.
The blocking element (28) comprises 1st and 2nd longitudinal elements (30 and 31) “arranged” to cooperate with the door handle structure in the blocking position to prevent movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support (indirectly, by blocking lever 25).
Schwab fails to disclose that the support is configured to be fixed to a pillar of a vehicle door. Schwab is located on the door.
Osenkowski teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle assembly either in a door or at the pillar of the vehicle (col. 3 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly described by Schwab located on the pillar of the vehicle, as taught by Osenkowsk, in order to provide a clean door surface or to provide less structure within the door.
As to claim 7, Schwab discloses that the safety device comprises an activation element (12) configured to activate the blocking element, and being moveable between a nonactive position and an active position, and wherein the blocking element is configured to cooperate with the activation element so that when the activation element moves from the nonactive position to the active position, the blocking element moves from the blocking position to the emergency position.
As to claim 11, Schwab discloses that the door handle structure comprises second guiding means (17) configured to cooperate with complementary second guiding means of the support to allow a rotation movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support.
As to claim 16, Schwab discloses sensing means that comprises for example one or more sensors (3), the vehicle door handle assembly being configured such that detection of a hand of a user by the sensing means, for example of the hand of the user touching the door handle (in the area where 3 is located), triggers the opening and/or unlocking and/or locking of the door.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19642698 to Schwab et al (Schwab) in view of US Pat No 4,895,403 to Osenkowski and further in view of US Pat No 7,513,544 to Cummins et al (Cummins).
Schwab, as modified by Osenkowski, fails to disclose that the at least one element has a shape that tapers down to an end thereof.
PNG
media_image2.png
443
1147
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cummins teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a blocking element (132) that is shaped so as to tapers down to an end thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking element described by Schwab, as modified by Osenkowski, tapered, as taught by Cummins, in order to guide the blocking element toward any of the positions.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19642698 to Schwab et al (Schwab) in view of US Pat No 4,895,403 to Osenkowski and US Pat No 7,513,544 to Cummins et al (Cummins).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 17, Schwab discloses a safety device for a vehicle door handle assembly. The safety device comprises a support (29); a door handle structure (1) configured to move with respect to the support between a rest handle position and an active handle position allowing opening of the vehicle door; and a blocking element (28) configured to move with respect to the support between a blocking position in which the blocking element prevents the door handle structure from moving with respect to the support, and an “emergency” position in which the blocking element allows the door handle structure to move with respect to the support from the rest handle position to the active handle position, for example when the door handle structure is subject to a pulling or pushing strain.
The blocking element comprises first guiding means (31) configured to cooperate with complementary first guiding means of the support to allow a translation movement of the blocking element with respect to the support along a translation axis.
First, Schwab fails to disclose that the support is configured to be fixed to a pillar of a vehicle door. Schwab is located on the door.
Osenkowski teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle assembly either in a door or at the pillar of the vehicle (col. 3 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly described by Schwab located on the pillar of the vehicle, as taught by Osenkowsk, in order to provide a clean door surface or to provide less structure within the door.
Second, Schwab fails to disclose that the blocking element comprises 1st and 2nd longitudinal elements, both configured to engage with the door handle structure in the blocking position to prevent movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support. Schwab discloses one longitudinal element (31).
PNG
media_image3.png
538
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cummins teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a blocking element (22) that comprises 1st and 2nd longitudinal elements (1016), both configured to engage a designed structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking element described by Schwab, with two longitudinal elements, as taught by Cummings, in order to aid in blocking the handle.
Applicant is reminded that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 4, Schwab fails to disclose that the at least one element has a shape that tapers down to an end thereof.
Cummins teaches another embodiment (fig 22), wherein is well known in the art to provide a blocking element (132) that is shaped so as to tapers down to an end thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking element described by Schwab tapered, as taught by Cummins, in order to guide the blocking element toward any of the positions.
As to claim 7, Schwab discloses that the safety device comprises an activation element (12) configured to activate the blocking element, and being moveable between a nonactive position and an active position, and wherein the blocking element is configured to cooperate with the activation element so that when the activation element moves from the nonactive position to the active position, the blocking element moves from the blocking position to the emergency position.
As to claim 11, Schwab discloses that the door handle structure comprises second guiding means (17) configured to cooperate with complementary second guiding means of the support to allow a rotation movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support.
As to claim 16, Schwab discloses sensing means that comprises for example one or more sensors (3), the vehicle door handle assembly being configured such that detection of a hand of a user by the sensing means, for example of the hand of the user touching the door handle (in the area where 3 is located), triggers the opening and/or unlocking and/or locking of the door.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 2,219,626 to Johnson in view of US Pat No 4,895,403 to Osenkowski and US Pat No 7,513,544 to Cummins et al (Cummins).
PNG
media_image4.png
692
1543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 17, Johnson discloses a safety device for a vehicle door handle assembly. The safety device comprises a support (17); a door handle structure (10) configured to move with respect to the support between a rest handle position and an active handle position allowing opening of the vehicle door; and a blocking element (14) configured to move with respect to the support between a blocking position in which the blocking element prevents the door handle structure from moving with respect to the support, and an “emergency” position in which the blocking element allows the door handle structure to move with respect to the support from the rest handle position to the active handle position, for example when the door handle structure is subject to a pulling or pushing strain.
The blocking element comprises first guiding means (external surface of 14 that interact with 16) configured to cooperate with complementary first guiding means of the support (external surface of 16 that interact with 14) to allow a translation movement of the blocking element with respect to the support along a translation axis (parallel to 12).
First, Johnson fails to disclose that the support is configured to be fixed to a pillar of a vehicle door. Schwab is located on the door.
Osenkowski teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle assembly either in a door or at the pillar of the vehicle (col. 3 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly described by Johnson located on the pillar of the vehicle, as taught by Osenkowsk, in order to provide a clean door surface or to provide less structure within the door.
Second, Johnson fails to disclose that the blocking element comprises 1st and 2nd longitudinal elements, both configured to engage with the door handle structure in the blocking position to prevent movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support. Johnson discloses one longitudinal element.
Cummins teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a blocking element (22) that comprises 1st and 2nd longitudinal elements (1016), both configured to engage a designed structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking element described by Johnson with two longitudinal elements, as taught by Cummings, in order to aid in blocking the handle.
Applicant is reminded that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 4, Johnson fails to disclose that the at least one element has a shape that tapers down to an end thereof.
Cummins teaches another embodiment (fig 22), wherein is well known in the art to provide a blocking element (132) that is shaped so as to tapers down to an end thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking element described by Johnson tapered, as taught by Cummins, in order to guide the blocking element toward any of the positions.
As to claim 7, Johnson discloses that the safety device comprises an activation element (18) configured to activate the blocking element, and being moveable between a nonactive position and an active position, and wherein the blocking element is configured to cooperate with the activation element so that when the activation element moves from the nonactive position to the active position, the blocking element moves from the blocking position to the emergency position.
As to claim 9, Johnson illustrates that the activation element is configured to rotate around an activation axis, the activation axis forming with the translation axis an angle comprised between 70 and 110 degrees.
As to claim 10, Johnson illustrates that the angle is capable of being 90 degrees.
As to claim 11, Johnson discloses that the door handle structure comprises second guiding means (12) configured to cooperate with complementary second guiding means of the support (hole receiving 12) to allow a rotation movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 2,219,626 to Johnson in view of US Pat No 4,895,403 to Osenkowski, US Pat No 7,513,544 to Cummins et al (Cummins) and further in view of DE 19642698 to Schwab et al (Schwab).
Johnson, as modified by Osenkowski and Cummins, fails to disclose that the handle comprises sensing means that comprises for example one or more sensors, the vehicle door handle assembly being configured such that detection of a hand of a user by the sensing means, for example of the hand of the user touching the door handle, triggers the opening and/or unlocking and/or locking of the door.
Schwab teaches that it is well known in the art to provide sensing means that comprises for example one or more sensors (3), the vehicle door handle assembly being configured such that detection of a hand of a user by the sensing means, for example of the hand of the user touching the door handle (in the area where 3 is located), triggers the opening and/or unlocking and/or locking of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle described by Johnson, as modified by Osenkowski and Cummins, with sensing means, as taught by Schwab, in order to automatically operate the door lock.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 14 are also allowed since the claims depend from claim 12 above.
Response to Arguments
The current amendment overcomes the previous objection to the specification and the previous 112 2nd paragraph rejections.
With respect to the prior art, the current amendment does not overcome the current rejection.
The claim requires that the blocking element comprises 1st and 2nd longitudinal elements arranged to cooperate with the door handle structure in the blocking position to prevent movement of the door handle structure with respect to the support.
The limitation does not require that both longitudinal elements will engage the door handle. As claimed, the longitudinal element has to be just “arranged” to cooperate with the handle structure.
Therefore, the rejection in view of Schwab is maintained.
Also, in the event that the intention is to claim both elements engaging the handle, a new rejection has been made on the record in view of Schwab or Johnson in view of Cummins.
Prosecution has been closed.
Conclusion
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 CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (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 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights