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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,671. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current application requires a vehicular exterior door handle assembly that comprises a base portion, a handle portion and a switch mechanism. The switch mechanism comprises a housing and a trigger element. Each comprises respective plurality of protrusions.
These and other limitations are presented in the ‘671 patent.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are 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 15 requires that the plurality of protrusions of the housing are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the housing. Claim 16 requires that the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the trigger element.
At the instant, by themselves, the claims are indefinite since it is unclear how it works with just one of the plurality of protrusions being arranged in a longitudinal direction.
At the instant, both pluralities are required to be arranged as claimed.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, claim 15 will be interpreted as including the limitations of claim 16. Correction is required.
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) 1-14 and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 6,626,473 to Klein et al (Klein) in view of US Pat No 8,786,401 to Sobecki et al (Sobecki) and US Pat Application Publication No 20180254720 to Ohishi.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
1559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Klein discloses a vehicular exterior door handle assembly that comprises a handle portion (10) and a switch mechanism (30) disposed at the handle portion. The switch mechanism comprises a trigger element movably disposed within a housing (20) that includes an inner portion (40) and an outer portion (21). When a force is applied at the outer portion, the outer portion moves in a first direction toward the inner portion.
First, Klein fails to disclose that the assembly comprises a base portion configured to mount at a door of a vehicle and to have the handle portion mounted thereon.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sobecki teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a handle assembly with a base portion (14) to mount a handle portion (16).
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 assembly described by Klein with a base portion, as taught by Sobecki, in or der to provide a mounting surface for the handle portion and the other elements of the assembly and also to protected it from damage.
Second, Klein fails to disclose that the housing comprises a plurality of protrusions and the trigger element comprises a plurality of protrusions. The plurality of protrusions of the housing extends toward the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element.
Wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the housing engages at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element and the trigger element moves at an angle relative to movement of the housing and actuates the switch mechanism.
Klein discloses a different way of operation, wherein the trigger element is part of the outer portion and in close proximity to a microswitch (16), so that when the outer portion is pushed, the trigger element immediately engages the microswitch to release a latch mechanism of the door to open the door. Because of this configuration, any non-desired actuation is not prevented.
PNG
media_image3.png
793
1506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ohishi teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a device (10) with a switch mechanism comprises a trigger element (60) and a housing (31).
Wherein, when a force is applied at the housing, the housing moves toward the trigger element. The housing comprises a plurality of protrusions (313), and wherein the trigger element comprises a plurality of protrusions (63). The plurality of protrusions of the housing extends toward the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element.
Wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the housing engages at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element and the trigger element moves at an angle relative to movement of the housing and actuates the switch mechanism (4, 5).
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 switching assembly described by Klein as one having an interaction between protrusions, as taught by Ohishi, in order to prevent any non-desired actuation by having a defined movement to operate the switch mechanism.
As to claims 2 and 18, Ohishi teaches that the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element comprises ramped protrusions, and wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, the plurality of protrusions of the housing engage ramped surfaces of the ramped protrusions.
As to claims 3 and 19, Ohishi teaches that the plurality of protrusions of the housing comprises ramped protrusions, and wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element engage ramped surfaces of the ramped protrusions.
As to claim 4, Ohishi teaches that the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element comprises ramped protrusions, and wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, ramped surfaces of the ramped protrusions of the trigger element engage ramped surfaces of the ramped protrusions of the housing.
As to claim 5, Ohishi teaches that the individual protrusions of the plurality of protrusions of the housing are spaced from one another so as to span length of the housing.
As to claim 6, Ohishi teaches that the individual protrusions of the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element are spaced from one another so as to span length of the trigger element.
As to claims 7 and 20, Ohishi teaches that a region of the housing is engageable by a user to apply the force to actuate the switch mechanism, and wherein the region spans length of the housing, and wherein the housing moves toward the trigger element responsive to the user applying the force at any part of the region of the housing.
As to claims 8 and 17, Ohishi teaches that the switch mechanism comprises a biasing element (8), and wherein the biasing element biases the trigger element away from actuating the switch mechanism.
As to claim 9, Ohishi teaches that responsive to at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the housing engaging at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element, the trigger element moves in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the housing.
As to claim 10, Klein discloses that with the vehicular exterior door handle assembly mounted at the vehicle, the force is applied when a user grasps the handle portion.
As to claims 11 and 21, Klein discloses that with the vehicular exterior door handle assembly mounted at the vehicle, the housing is exposed exterior the vehicle.
As to claim 12, Klein discloses that the handle portion comprises an aperture, and wherein the switch mechanism is mounted at the handle portion so the housing protrudes at least partially through the aperture.
As to claim 13, Ohishi teaches a cover element (32) that is disposed at an outer surface of the housing so that no portion of the housing is exposed exterior the vehicle.
As to claims 14 and 22, Ohishi teaches that the angle is between 80 degrees and 100 degrees.
As to claim 23, Ohishi teaches that the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element comprises ramped protrusions, and wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, the plurality of protrusions of the housing engage ramped surfaces of the ramped protrusions, and wherein the plurality of protrusions of the housing comprises ramped protrusions, and wherein, as the housing moves toward the trigger element, the plurality of protrusions of the trigger element engage ramped surfaces of the ramped protrusions.
As to claim 24, Ohishi teaches that a region of the housing is engageable by a user to apply the force to actuate the switch mechanism, and wherein the region spans length of the housing, and wherein the housing moves toward the trigger element responsive to the user applying the force at any part of the region of the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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.
Claims 15 and 16, as interpreted above, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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 at (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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights