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
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) 1-2, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al. US 10633895. (Hereinafter referred to as Saltar)
Regarding claim 1, Salter discloses a self-protecting (because it has a stowed position which protects inner handle surfaces) door handle assembly comprising:
a base plate(14);
an escutcheon (400) fixedly attached to the baseplate; and
a lever base (52) protruding from the escutcheon wherein the lever base is rotatable; and
a lever (36) extending adjacently from the lever base, wherein the lever is configured to roll into an extended configuration (fig 15) where the lever may pitch to allow operation of the door handle assembly and into a retracted configuration (when flushed with 14, not explicitly shown in this embodiment but shown embodiments of fig. 4a and 12) where the lever is inhibited from operating the door handle assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Salter discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 1, further comprising a lever extender (portion of 16 that is directly connected to 60 and 66, fig15) connecting the lever base to the lever.
Regarding claim 5, Salter discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 1, wherein the retracted configuration is a configuration where the lever is substantially flush (NOTE: Embodiment of fig15 does not explicitly show this position, however it is equivalent to the positions as shown in fig. 4a and 12) having with the baseplate, and actuation of the lever is restricted by a restricting surface (left edge surface of opening in 14, restricted because that provides no opening for user to grip the lever, therefore the actuation of the lever is restricted until it is disengaged with the restricting surface).
Regarding claim 6, Salter discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 2, wherein a length (annotated figure) of the lever extender is approximately less than or equal to a distance (annotated figure) from a lever anchor point (at 58) to the base plate. (See annotated figure)
Regarding 7, Salter discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 5, wherein a length of a lever extender is approximately greater than or equal (considered to be approximately equal, see annotated figure) to a distance from a lever anchor point (at 58) to the restricting surface. (See annotated figure)
Regarding claim 8, Salter discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 1, further comprising a motor (72, 62) proximally connected to the lever wherein the motor rotates the lever from the retracted configuration to the extended configuration and from the extended configuration to the retracted configuration. (fig15, col. 14 lines 61- col. 15 line 16, background of invention)
Regarding claim 9, Salter discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 8, wherein at least a portion (62 is considered part of motor 72) of the motor is housed in (fig15) the lever base.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linnasen US 12037810. (Hereinafter referred to as Linnasen)
Regarding claim 1, Linnasen discloses a self-protecting (because it has a stowed postion which protects inner handle surfaces) door handle assembly comprising:
a base plate(10);
an escutcheon (see Linnasen annotated figure) fixedly attached to the baseplate; and
a lever base (50) protruding from the escutcheon wherein the lever base is rotatable (via axis A); and
a lever (20) extending adjacently from the lever base, wherein the lever is configured to roll (via axis B) into an extended configuration (fig2b) where the lever may pitch to allow operation of the door handle assembly and into a retracted configuration (fig2a) where the lever is inhibited from operating the door handle assembly. (fig2a-2b)
Regarding claim 4, Linnasen discloses the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 1, further comprising a restricting surface (edge surface of escutcheon, see Linnasen annotated figure) disposed on the escutcheon where in the restricting surface contacts the lever when the door handle assembly is in the retracted configuration.
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) 3, 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter US 10633895, as applied to claim 1 above (for claim 3 only), alone. (Hereinafter referred to as Saltar)
Regarding claim 3, Salter teaches the self-protecting door handle assembly of claim 1, however the embodiment of fig 15 does not teach it further comprising a keypad disposed on the baseplate, wherein the keypad may initiate transitioning the door handle assembly from the extended configuration to the retracted configuration, and from the retracted configuration to the extended configuration.
However, Salter’s other embodiment (fig4) teaches a self-protecting door handle assembly further comprising a keypad (70) disposed on (via 16) the baseplate, wherein the keypad may initiate transitioning the door handle assembly from the extended configuration to the retracted configuration (NOTE: This occurs when swipe closed gesture command is detected and causes closing of the door and therefore returning of handle to retracted configuration, fig7), and from the retracted configuration to the extended configuration. (see background of invention, col. 4 lines 12-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of fig 15 of Salter to have the keypad as taught by Salter’s other embodiment of the door handle assembly in order to add sequence command codes to deploy the handle (Salter, col. 4 lines 12-38 states the keypad input deploys the handle body and the actuator actuates the handle based on user input on the keypad. Also see col.10 lines 4-25, fig7).
Regarding claim 10, Saltar teaches a self-protecting(because it has a stowed position which protects inner handle surfaces) door handle assembly therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Saltar also teaches the method of operating a self-protecting door handle assembly (fig15) comprising:
receiving credentials through a user interface (70 , See Salter, col. 4 lines 12-38 states the keypad input deploys the handle body and the actuator (motor) actuates the handle based on user input on the keypad. Also see col.10 lines 4-25, fig7).);
rolling a lever (36) from an extended configuration (fig4b) to a retracted configuration (fig 4a), wherein rolling the lever comprises rolling the lever on an axis (at 58) parallel (parallel to height of lever) to the lever but offset from a center (center of lever is center of longitudinal axis of lever) of the lever such that the lever changes positions; and
contacting the lever against a restricting surface (left edge of opening in 40, fig 4a) such that the lever is now restricted from actuating.
Regarding claim 11, Saltar teaches the method of claim 10, wherein rolling the lever comprises rolling the lever on the axis parallel to the lever but offset a distance less than the distance between a baseplate (14) and a lever anchor point (at 58). (see annotated figure for distance between the baseplate and lever anchor point and compare to distance from axis at 58 to center of lever from which it is offset)
Regarding claim 12, Saltar teaches the method of claim 10, wherein rolling the lever comprises rolling the lever on the axis parallel to the lever but offset a distance greater than the distance between the restricting surface and a lever anchor point (at 58). (see annotated figure)
Regarding claim 13, Saltar teaches the method of claim 10, wherein receiving the credentials through the user interface comprises registering a correct code (sequential order, col. 5 lines 12-39) inputted on a keypad (70A-E).
Regarding claim 14, Saltar teaches the method of claim 10, wherein rolling the lever from the extended configuration to the retracted configuration comprises activating a motor (72) which rotates an output shaft (worm gear 76 see fig4c; this is considered a functionally equivalent alternate embodiment to that shown in fig 4a, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that the motor rotates an output shaft since the two motor configurations are interchangeable.) clockwise. (see col. 6 lines 5-16, depending on required movement of 52 and lever 36, the output shaft 76 can move in opposing directions – therefore clockwise rotation and counter clockwise rotation. See Salter, col. 4 lines 12-38 states the keypad input deploys the handle body (lever) and the actuator (motor) actuates the handle based on user input on the keypad. Also see col.10 lines 4-25, fig7)
Regarding claim 15, Saltar teaches a self-protecting (because it has a stowed position which protects inner handle surfaces) door handle assembly therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Saltar also teaches the method of operating a self-protecting door handle assembly comprising:
receiving credentials through a user interface (70 , See Salter, col. 4 lines 12-38 states the keypad input deploys the handle body and the actuator (motor) actuates the handle based on user input on the keypad. Also see col.10 lines 4-25, fig7).);
rolling a lever (36) from a retracted configuration (fig4a) to an extended configuration (fig4b), wherein rolling the lever consists of rolling the lever on an axis parallel (parallel to height of lever) to the lever but offset from a center (center of lever is center of longitudinal axis of lever) of the lever such that the lever changes positions; and
removing the lever from contacting a restricting surface(left edge of opening in 40, fig 4a) such that the lever is now unrestricted and able to actuate. (annotated figure, fig4a-4b)
Regarding claim 16, Saltar teaches the method of claim 15, wherein rolling the lever comprises rolling the lever on the axis parallel to the lever but offset a distance less than the distance between a baseplate (14) and a lever anchor point (at 58). (see annotated figure for distance between the baseplate and lever anchor point and compare to distance from axis at 58 to center of lever from which it is offset)
Regarding claim 17, Saltar teaches the method of claim 15, wherein rolling the lever comprises rolling the lever on the axis parallel to the lever but offset a distance greater than the distance between the restricting surface and a lever anchor point (at 58). (see annotated figure)
Regarding claim 18, Saltar teaches the method of claim 15, wherein receiving the credentials through the user interface comprises registering a correct code (sequential order, col. 5 lines 12-39) inputted on a keypad (70A-E).
Regarding claim 19, Saltar teaches the method of claim 15, wherein rolling the lever from the retracted configuration to the extended configuration comprises activating a motor (72) which rotates an output shaft (worm gear 76 see fig4c; this is considered a functionally equivalent alternate embodiment to that shown in fig 4a, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that the motor rotates an output shaft since the two motor configurations are interchangeable.) counterclockwise (see col. 6 lines 5-16, depending on required movement of 52 and lever 36, the output shaft 76 can move in opposing directions – therefore clockwise rotation and counter clockwise rotation. See Salter, col. 4 lines 12-38 states the keypad input deploys the handle body (lever) and the actuator (motor) actuates the handle based on user input on the keypad. Also see col.10 lines 4-25, fig7).
Annotated Figures
Saltar:
PNG
media_image1.png
568
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Linnasen:
PNG
media_image2.png
771
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1,10,15: Applicant relies on Applicant’s own definition of rolling from paragraph 27 of the written description to argue that the references do not teach rolling as defined by the Applicant. Applicant in the remarks refers to the axis being longitudinal. However, in the written description, the term longitudinal is not used to describe the axis. The definition referred to in paragraph 27 only states, “a motor may rotate the lever along an axis parallel to said lever such that the lever is located directly adjacent to an escutcheon or base plate of the door handle assembly. The rotation of the lever along this axis may be considered rolling to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In the prior art reference Saltar, the axis (along 58 as referenced above) [this also applies to Linnason, who’s axis is B for claim 1], which is parallel to the ‘width’ of the handle as shown in the annotated figure] is the axis upon which the motor rotates the lever, said axis is also parallel to the height of the lever, and therefore, Examiner maintains that both Slatar and Linnason (claim 1 only) read on claims 1/10/15. Applicant does state in paragraph 27 of the written description that “this movement is in a different direction than the rotation of the lever when the door handle assembly is actuated by a user,” however, this is considered a detail, not part of the definition of the term ‘rolling’ defined by the Applicant. This detail is also not in claim 1 or claim 10. Although claim limitations are read in light of specifications, details of the specification are not read into the claims. Rejection maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to door handle assemblies.
Related but not relied upon prior art: Saltar et al. US 11078691 drawn to a handle assembly with a keypad, Patel et al. US 9957737 drawn to a handle assembly with a keypad, Do US 10337218 drawn to an extendable and retractable handle assembly with an escutcheon and base plate.
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
