9DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that Jankowski does not teach a modular device. Jankowski’s device is modular at least as it meets the definition of “consisting of separate parts that, when combined, form a complete whole” – Cambridge dictionary. Further the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Jankowski does not teach one blade. Jankowski teaches one blade (4 blades include one blade) but not a single blade.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 “causes the blade to rotate according to a trajectory” should be “causes the one blade to rotate according to a trajectory”
In claim 7 “wherein the rotor comprises one single blade” should read “wherein the one blade of the rotor is a single blade”,
In claim 13 “the other one” should be “an other one”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 9, 11, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 5, claim 1 has been amended to state “wherein the handle column and the lever are made as one single piece and have same axis of rotation” drawing the claims firmly to the embodiment seen in figures 2 and 4. However “the means of connection is a single opening in the housing” in claim 5 is an exclusive feature of a separate embodiment seen in figures 1, 3 and 5.
In regards to claim 9, claim 1 has been amended to state “wherein the handle column and the lever are made as one single piece and have same axis of rotation” drawing the claims firmly to the embodiment seen in figures 2 and 4. However “fixing holes” in claim 9 is only shown in separate embodiment seen in figures 1, 3 and 5. Only a single fixing hole is shown in the embodiment in figure 2.
In regards to claim 11, claim 1 has been amended to state “wherein the handle column and the lever are made as one single piece and have same axis of rotation” drawing the claims firmly to the embodiment seen in figures 2 and 4. However “the shaft extends along a door panel, from an upper end to a lower end of the door panel.” in claim 11 is only shown in separate embodiment seen in figures 1, 3 and 5.
In regards to claim 15, claim 1 has been amended to state “wherein the handle column and the lever are made as one single piece and have same axis of rotation” drawing the claims firmly to the embodiment seen in figures 2 and 4. However “a spring connected to the handle column” in claim 15 is only shown in separate embodiment seen in figures 1, 3 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Some of the previous 112b rejections have been overcome by the present amendments, however some remain.
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.
Claims 13-14 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.
In regards to claim 13, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “rotate freely” in claim 13 is used by the claim to mean “not intended to be connected to any element,” while the accepted meaning is “without restraint.” -Merriam webster definition of “freely”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Further The term is unclear as it’s unclear what would be considered a connection or intentional. Furthermore, it appears in the drawings the end (5b) that rotates freely is connected to a part of the door handle (see fig 3). For the purposes of examination as long as the “another end” is capable of rotating relative to the door, the limitation is assumed to be met.
Claims 14 is rejected due their dependency on the rejected claim above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jankowski US 20090044378 A1 (hereinafter Jankowski).
In regards to claim 1, Jankowski teaches a system comprising: an assembly for a door handle of a motor vehicle, the assembly comprising: a shaft including opposing ends (end with 78 and end with 96); a lever (94) coupled to the shaft such that rotation of the lever results in concurrent rotation of the shaft (see fig 15); and a handle column (90) connected to the lever and configured to be moved between a rest position (when 86 is at rest) and an extended position (when 86 is extended out; see fig 14); and a device (see fig 17; at least 34, 106 and 108) comprising: a housing (34); a non-Newtonian fluid (velocity dependent material see para 26) located within the housing; and a rotor (106 and 108) at least partly immersed in the non-Newtonian fluid and configured to rotate about a rotor axis (axis of 102), wherein the system is configured such that the device is a modular device (at least modular as it is “consisting of separate parts that, when combined, form a complete whole” – Cambridge dictionary) mounted to one of the opposing ends of the shaft (end connected to 102) of the assembly (see para 41 and fig 7), and wherein the rotor comprises one blade (one of 108) that is attached to a hub (106), the hub configured to be connected to the one of the opposing ends of the shaft such that when the shaft rotates (see fig 17), the hub is rotated and causes the blade to rotate according to a trajectory which defines only an arc of a circle around the rotor axis (at least when only partially rotated), wherein the handle column and the lever are made as one single piece and have same axis of rotation (see figs 14 and 15).
In regards to claim 2, Jankowski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the device is configured such that when the rotor rotates past a threshold speed, a viscosity of the non-Newtonian fluid increases past a viscosity threshold (para 26).
In regards to claim 3, Jankowski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the housing is configured to be connected (at least indirectly) to the one of the opposing ends (end with 96 of the shaft via a means of connection (102, see fig 16).
In regards to claim 4, Jankowski in view of Mosch teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the means of connection is a single means of connection (there is only a single 102, see fig 16).
In regards to claim 8, Jankowski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the non-Newtonian fluid is a rheopectic fluid (para 26).
In regards to claim 11, Jankowski teaches the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the shaft extends along a door panel (para 23), from an upper end to a lower end of the door panel (considering to the northwest of fig 14 as upper).
In regards to claim 13, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Jankowski teaches the assembly according to claim 1, the other one (end with 78) of the opposing ends of the shaft is configured to rotate freely (as best understood see fig 15).
In regards to claim 15, Jankowski teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising a spring (spring described in para 40) connected to the handle column (fig 14) and configured to resist the rotation of the shaft when the handle column is pulled away from the rest position (para 40), and to assist return of the handle column from the extended position to the rest position (see fig 14 and para 40).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankowski as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Mosch US 4736972 A (hereinafter Mosch).
In regards to claim 14, Jankowski teaches the assembly according to claim 13.
However, Jankowski is silent on details of the interface between the shaft and the rotor and therefore does not teach wherein the one end of the shaft that is configured to be connected to the device comprises a flat intended to be inserted into the housing of the device.
Mosch teaches wherein one end (32) of a shaft (31 and 32) that is configured to be connected to the device comprises a flat (at least flat surfaces of 69) intended to be inserted into the housing of the device (as its inserted into 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the one end of the shaft that is configured to be connected to the device comprises a flat intended to be inserted into the housing of the device in order to provide for a well-known and well known way of connecting while linking rotation (see Mosch Col 1 line 57-68).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankowski as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Taylor et al. US 20150035300 A1 (hereinafter Taylor).
In regards to claim 6, Jankowski teaches the device according to claim 1
However, Jankowski is silent on wherein the housing comprises a compartment that is hermetically sealed.
Taylor teaches a hermetic seal to protect against dust and water (para 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Jankowski’s seal be hermetically sealed in order to protect the device (Taylor: para 11)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankowski as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Hayakawa et al. JP H09317289 A (hereinafter Hayakawa).
In regards to claim 9, Jankowski teaches the device according to claim 1.
However, Jankowski is silent on wherein the housing has fixing holes configured to receive fixing means so as to fix the device to a door bracket.
Hayakawa teaches wherein a housing has fixing holes (43) configured to receive fixing means so as to fix the device to a door bracket (at least indirectly, see para 49 and fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the housing has fixing holes configured to receive fixing means so as to fix the device to a door bracket in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of fastening a housing.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 20180094459 A1 (hereinafter Kim) in view of Jankowski.
In regards to claim 1, Kim teaches system comprising: an assembly for a door handle of a motor vehicle (see fig 1), the assembly comprising: a shaft (22) including opposing ends; a lever (see reference image 1) coupled to the shaft such that rotation of the lever results in concurrent rotation of the shaft; and a handle column (see reference image) connected to the lever and configured to be moved between a rest position (when 35 is at rest) and an extended position (when 35 is extended); and a device comprising: a housing (51); a fluid (viscous fluid in para 25) located within the housing; and a rotor (53 and 55) at least partly immersed in the non-Newtonian fluid and configured to rotate about a rotor axis (see fig 4) wherein the system is configured such that the device is a modular device mounted to one of the opposing ends of the shaft of the assembly (see fig 4), and wherein the rotor comprises one blade (one of 55) that is attached to a hub (53), the hub configured to be connected to the one of the opposing ends of the shaft such that when the shaft rotates, the hub is rotated and causes the blade to rotate according to a trajectory which defines only an arc of a circle around the rotor axis (at least during only a partial rotation), wherein the handle column and the lever are made as one single piece and have same axis of rotation (see fig 2).
However, Kim is silent on if the fluid is a non-newtonian fluid.
Jankowski teaches a non-newtonian fluid. (a velocity dependent material see para 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a non-newtonian fluid in Kim in order to allow a solid-like state of the fluid, further preventing opening in case of an accident (Jankoski para 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 3, Kim in view of Jankowski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the housing is configured to be connected to the one of the opposing ends of the shaft via a means of connection (Kim: see fig 3 and para 29).
In regards to claim 5, Kim in view of Jankowski teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the means of connection is a single opening (Kim: opening of 52, as the opening of 52 is within the housing, see fig 3) in the housing adapted to receive the one end of the shaft see (Kim: fig 3 and para 29).
In regards to claim 7, Kim in view of Jankowski teaches the system the device according to claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises one single blade (Kim: para 28 describes a single blade).
In regards to claim 12, Kim in view of Jankowski teaches the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the handle column is configured to operate the lever between opposing end of the lever (see reference image 1).
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights