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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph 33, line 4, the word “Aa” should be changed to “As.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 3, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a first state,” in lines 3 and 4, the phrase “via a second state where” should be changed to “to a second state, where” since it appears that this portion of the claim is listing out the states of the door handle and not that the door handle would transition to the first state via the second state as suggested by the claim language, in line 4, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a third state,” in line 5, the word “further” should be removed and the phrase “by a user” should be inserted after the phrase “from the second state,” in line 8, the word “and” should be removed after the phrase “an up-down direction,” in line 9, the phrase “a rod or lever” should be changed to “a rod,” in lines 10 and 11, the phrase “wherein the mechanism unit includes a latch drive mechanism” should be changed to “and a latch drive mechanism,” in lines 11 and 12, the phrase “the rod or lever” should be changed to “the rod,” in line 12, the phrase “based on movement of the door handle” should be changed to “based on the pulling,” and in line 13, the phrase “by the user” should be inserted after the phrase “to the third state.”
In regards to claim 2, line 2, the phrase “a bell crank rotating around” should be changed to “a bell crank configured to rotate around,” and in line 4, the phrase “the rod or lever” should be changed to “the rod.”
In regards to claim 3, line 8, the phrase “the rod or lever” should be changed to “the rod,” and in line 10, the word “move” should be changed to “rotate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 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.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear how the door handle is pulled out toward the vehicle outer side from the second state, since without recitation of the pulling occurring because of a user, the claim language suggests that some other mechanism causes the pulling. Furthermore, it is unclear how the door handle is “further pulled” when the claim does not recite any initial pulling, only transitioning of the door handle to the second state such that the door handle protrudes from the surface of the door outer panel. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear what applicant considers as the “lever” in the phrase “a rod or lever.” Furthermore, it is unclear how one end of the “rod or lever” is connected to the mechanism unit. Specifically, it is understood from the specification and drawings that the device only includes a rod, not a lever, with the rod including one end connected to the door handle and an opposite end to the movable portion of the door latch device, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear how the mechanism unit includes the latch drive mechanism or bell crank, when lines 2-5 of the claim set forth that the mechanism unit causes the door handle to move to the first and second states and the bell crank does not affect the state of the door handle. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting the latch drive mechanism separate from the mechanism unit. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “movement of the door handle,” as recited in lines 12 and 13, and the “pulling” of the door handles, as recited in line 5, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “movement” of the door handle in lines 12 and 13 is equivalent to the “pulling” of the door handle in line 5, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 2, the phrase “a bell crank rotating around a rotation shaft” suggests that the bell crank is always rotating, however, it is understood from the specification that the bell crank is configured to rotate around the rotation shaft and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 3, it is unclear what structure or component of the device the phrase “when viewed” refers, i.e. when what is viewed? For examination purposes, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 3, it is unclear how the bell crank “moves” when claim 2 recites that the bell crank rotates. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the bell crank rotates. See claim objections above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama (US Pub. No. 2021/0363795) in view of Estrada et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0230722).
In regards to claim 1, Toyama discloses a door handle device comprising: a mechanism unit 9, 9a that causes a state of a door handle 4 provided on a side of a door outer panel to transition from a first state (Figure 3), where the door handle is retracted along a surface of the door outer panel, to a second state (Figure 4A), where the door handle protrudes from the surface of the door outer panel, to a third state (Figure 4B), where the door handle is pulled out toward a vehicle outer side from the second state by a user; a door latch device 6 being switched between a door locking state and an unlocking state in response to pulling of the door handle (Paragraph 42); and a connecting element or cable 15 that includes one end connected to the door handle (connected to the door handle via components 3, 7, and 14) and an opposite end connected to the door latch device (Figure 2), and a latch drive mechanism 3, 14, 7 that moves the opposite end of the connecting element or cable in an up-down direction (Figure 6A and 6B), based on the pulling of the door handle from the second state to the third state by the user (Paragraphs 40 and 41). Toyama fails to specify that the door latch device includes a movable portion that is movable between an upper position and a lower position, such that a change in position of the movable portion is in the up-down direction, and that the connecting element is a rod. Estrada et al. teaches a door latch device 12 that includes a movable portion 38, 40 that is movable by a door handle 28 between an upper position (Figures 2A and 2B) and a lower position (Figures 2G and 2H), with the change in position occurring in an up-down direction (Figures 2A-2H), and with the door handle being connected to the movable portion with a linkage, rod, or cable 31. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the door latch device include a movable portion and that the connecting element be a rod, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is known in the vehicle door latch device art to include movable portion(s) or component(s) between a handle and mechanical components of the latch device to be operated and since rods and cables are equivalent for their use in the mechanical connection art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to provide a mechanical connection between a door handle and a movable component would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 2, Toyama in view of Estrada et al. teaches that the latch drive mechanism includes a bell crank 17 (Toyama) configured to rotate around a rotation shaft (shaft associated with rotation center C17, Figures 6A and 6B of Toyama) whose main direction component is a vehicle front-rear direction (Figure 2 of Toyama), and the rod includes the one end connected to the bell crank (Figures 6A and 6B of Toyama).
In regards to claim 3, Toyama in view of Estrada et al. teaches that the latch drive mechanism includes a portion or member that is integrally formed with or coupled to the door handle (member 3, 14 coupled to the door handle, Figures 2, 5A, and 5C of Toyama), wherein when the door handle is viewed in an axial direction of the rotation shaft, accompanying the pulling of the door handle from the second state to the third state by the user, the portion or member is displaced from a first position (at least portion 3 of Toyama in Figure 4A and equivalent to Figure 6A of Toyama) to a second position (at least portion 3 of Toyama in Figure 4B and equivalent to Figure 6B of Toyama) that is on a vehicle outer side of the first position in a vehicle width direction (Figures 4A and 4B of Toyama), the bell crank includes a first end 7b (Toyama) contacting against the portion or member (contacting portion 14 of the member, Figures 6A and 6B of Toyama) and a second end 7a (Toyama) connected to the rod, and rotation of the bell crank accompanying displacement of the portion or member from the first position to the second position causes the second end of the bell crank to move from a third position to a fourth position that is on a lower side of the third position (lower side of the when viewing the device looking from reference character 6 towards reference character 7 in Figure 6B of Toyama).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights