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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/16/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno US 20080190157 (hereinafter referred to as Mizuno) and further in view of Singh et al. US 11359420 (hereinafter referred to as Singh).
Claim 1. Mizuno teaches a knob assembly comprising: an opening and closing knob (3,4) and in which a keyhole (1), into which a key (20) is inserted, is formed in one surface (surface of 4) of the opening and closing knob;
a knob cover (6) which slides forward (fig3a) or rearward (fig3c) to cover the one surface of the opening and closing knob; and
a stopper (8) which is formed on the one surface of the opening and closing knob to restrict movement of the knob cover when the knob cover moves fully rearward (fig3c), wherein the knob cover moves fully forward to cover the keyhole (fig3a).
Mizuno although teaches the opening and closing knob, Mizuno does not teach it opens or closes a glove box.
Singh teaches an opening and closing knob that opens and closes a glove box.
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 device of Mizuno on a glovebox, as taught by Singh, since the placement of the knob assembly is considered intended use and the knob assembly of Mizuno would remain functionally equivalent.
Claim 2. Mizuno in view of Singh further teaches the knob assembly of claim 1, wherein: guide portions (Mizuno 9A, 8B) are formed on both end portions of the opening and closing knob (Mizuno);
sliding portions (Mizuno 13A, 13B) having shapes (Mizuno concave shape, fig1) corresponding to the guide portions are formed on both end portions of the knob cover; and
the knob cover is configured to move so the sliding portions come into contact with the guide portions and then slide. (Mizuno fig 1-2d)
Claim 3. Mizuno in view of Singh further teaches the knob assembly of claim 2, wherein: at least a portion of each of the sliding portions formed on both end portions of the knob cover is bent inward to form a recessed groove (Mizuno, the sliding portions are concave/recessed grooves, see fig 1); and each guide portion of the opening and closing knob is received in the recessed groove, and the guide portion is in contact with the corresponding sliding portion. (Mizuno fig1-2d)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno does not teach that the stopper, which has to protrude from each of both end portions of the operating and closing knob, comes into contact with the portion of the front portion of the knob cover configured to bend downward to restrict reward movement of the sliding portion. Mizuno’s stopper is not on both end portions of the knob and does not come into contact with a bent portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and the Mizuno reference: Applicant argues that Mizuno does not restrict reward movement of the knob cover. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear that in fig 3c of Mizuno, the surface of 8 which the spring is compressed against, creates the ‘stopping’ function that would enable it to ‘restrict’ movement in this specific movement direction (rearward is moving from fig3a to fig3c). Rejection maintained.
Previous 112 rejections are overcome in light of amendments. Claim 4 remains objected to.
Drawing objections are overcome in light of Applicant’s remarks and new drawing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to knob assemblies.
Previously cited related but not relied upon prior art: US 8584493, US 5893282, DE 19724573.
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 FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Christine M. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
