Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/041,209

VEHICLE DOOR HANDLE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 30, 2025
Examiner
SIDKY, YAHYA I
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Minebea AccessSolutions France S.A.S.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 198 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
238
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 198 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 01/30/2025 has been received and reviewed. 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. Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the phrase “can be”. It is unclear if the limitations following this phrase are required or not. 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) 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 3034802 to Thai. 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) 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3034802 to Thai in view of US 20230332444 to Despreaux. Regarding claim 9, Thai discloses: A vehicle door handle assembly (fig 1), comprising: a bracket (7) configured to be fixed on an inner side of a door panel (4); a movable handle (18) fastened to the bracket and configured to move between a retracted position (when 18 is flush) wherein the movable handle flushes with an outer side (5) of the door panel and a deployed position (fig 2); a security plate (17) comprising a central opening (41) and configured to be fixed to the bracket; a lock (19) configured to be positioned within the central opening of the security plate; and a cover (16) fastened to the bracket and/or to the security plate and configured to cover the security plate, the cover comprising a central opening (26) configured to receive the lock. Thai does not explicitly disclose the cover being a plastic cover. However, Despreaux teaches that it is well known in the art for a cover (7a) to be made of plastic (paragraph 0030). 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 Despreaux into Thai at least because doing so would provide additional utility by allowing the use of different materials Regarding claim 10, Thai in view of Despreaux discloses: The vehicle door handle assembly in accordance with claim 9, wherein the plastic cover is clipped to the bracket and/or to the security plate (via 31). Regarding claim 11, Thai in view of Despreaux discloses: The vehicle door handle assembly in accordance with claim 10, wherein the plastic cover comprises a first and a second pins (29) arranged on a first side (left side) of the plastic cover and configured to be positioned in a respective first and second slots (slots of 17 seen in fig 3) of the bracket or the security plate and a hook (31) arranged on a second side (right side) of the plastic cover, opposite to the first side, and configured to be introduced within an opening (43) of the bracket or the security plate for clipping the plastic cover to the bracket and/or to the security plate. Regarding claim 13, Thai in view of Despreaux discloses: The vehicle door handle assembly in accordance with claim 9, wherein the security plate is made of steel (13 of Despreaux, see paragraph 0030). 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 Despreaux into Thai at least because doing so would provide additional utility by allowing the use of different materials. Regarding claim 14, Thai in view of Despreaux discloses: The vehicle door handle assembly in accordance with claim 9, wherein the movable handle comprises a manual release position (fig 2) wherein the lock can be positioned from the outside of the vehicle door panel in a recess (see recess in 7 where 19 is positioned in fig 2) of the bracket. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12 and 15-17 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601210
DOOR HANDLE SYSTEM FOR A SAFETY DOOR, ESPECIALLY FOR A SLIDING DOOR OR A SWING DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590480
COMPACT POWERED DOOR LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577807
VERTICALLY ADJUSTABLE STRIKE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577808
GATE LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559991
MINIMALIST SECONDARY BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 198 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month