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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lesueur et al, US 20120067657 A1 (hereinafter Lesueur).
Regarding claim 1, Lesueur teaches a door handle (handle 1; Fig 1), comprising:
- a handle element (gripping element 3),
- a deflection element (transmission lever 11),
- a transmission element (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts the transmission element to the Bowden cable 13),
- a locking mechanism for locking a lock (security system 17; 117), and
- a handle support (base 5), to which the handle element and the deflection element are articulated (Figs 1; 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
363
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur
wherein the transmission element is coupled to the deflection element (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts the transmission coupled to 11), and wherein, upon actuation of the handle element, the deflection element can be actuated and the lock can be unlocked thereby via the transmission element [0013], wherein the locking mechanism comprises at least one mass lock (second inertial body 117), which, due to an accident, can be displaced into a locking position on the deflection element due to mass inertia [0076], and
wherein the locking mechanism further comprises a blocking device (hook 132), which irreversibly blocks the mass lock in the locking position ([0084]; see movement between Fig 6A and Fig 6B).
Regarding claim 2, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 1, wherein the mass lock (117) comprises a unidirectional locking element (hook 130) and a mass element (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur).
Regarding claim 3, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 2, wherein the locking element (130) and the mass element (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur) are mounted so as to be rotatable about a common locking axis (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts 130 and the mass element rotatable about a common locking axis).
Regarding claim 4, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 2, wherein the locking element (130) and the mass element (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur) are designed as a one-piece mass locking element (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts 130 and the mass element designed as a one piece mass locking element).
Regarding claim 5, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 1, wherein the deflection element (11) has a locking opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Lesueur), into which the mass lock (117) engages in a locking manner in the locking position (movement from Fig 6A to Fig 6B depicts the movement of 117 into a locking position with 124 engaged with the locking opening).
PNG
media_image2.png
428
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Lesueur
Regarding claim 6, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 1, wherein, when the mass lock (117) is brought into its locking position on the deflection element (11; Fig 6B), the blocking device (132) moves into a blocking position on the mass lock (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts the blocking position to be 130 engaged with 132; [0084]) in order to irreversibly block the mass lock in its locking position (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts 130 engaged with 132 in such a manner to prevent 117 pivoting back on its own, thereby satisfying the definition of irreversible in instant specification [0009]; the reset discussed is not defined in both Lesueur and the instant specification).
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 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesueur, US 20120067657 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 1, wherein the blocking device (132) is designed as a leaf spring (it is known in the art for leaf springs to be a layered spring structure commonly used in the vehicle suspension systems. Instant specification [0041] calls leaf spring 14.2.1 a flat spring; one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would recognize 132 designed as a flat spring because of its structure of mounting point off of 5 (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur) and extending generally flat strip (or leaf) which engages with 130; ).
Regarding claim 8, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 7, wherein the leaf spring (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur) comprises a spring leg (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur), which rests with an abutment portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur) laterally on the mass lock (117) in a spring-loaded manner (movement between Fig 6A and Fig 6B depicts how the abutment portion elastically slides over the spring leg and comes to rest in a spring loaded manner against each other further biased by spring 123; [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 8, wherein, when the mass lock (117) is brought into its locking position (Fig 6B), the spring leg (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur) automatically moves from its lateral abutment on the mass lock into the blocking position on the mass lock [0084].
Regarding claim 10, Lesueur teaches the door handle according to claim 9, wherein the spring leg comprises an extension (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur), which, in the blocking position (Fig 6B), irreversibly blocks the mass lock (117) in its locking position (Annotated excerpt Fig 6B-Lesueur depicts 130 engaged with the extension of the spring leg of 132 in such a manner to prevent 117 pivoting back on its own, thereby satisfying the definition of irreversible in instant specification [0009]; the subsequent reset process discussed is not defined in either Lesueur and the instant specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for door handles.
Nam, KR 20090062866 A, teaches a door outside handle of a car with pivoting mass lock which can be displaced to lock a deflection element.
Savant et al., US 8840156 B2, teaches a handle for a door leaf of an automobile with pivoting mass lock which can be displaced to lock a deflection element.
Nomura et al., WO 2017130606 A1, teaches a outside handle device with pivoting mass lock which can be displaced to lock a deflection element.
Diezestevez et al., CN 114059861 A, teaches a reversible and non-reversible inertia-safety-lock opening control device with pivoting mass lock which can be displaced to lock a deflection element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 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 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675