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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 06/02/26. Amendments received on 06/02/2026 have been entered. As per applicant claims and 9 have been canceled. Accordingly claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-15 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan, Gerhardt, Debord and further in view of Twigger (US Pub 2025/0135925).
As of claims 1, and 13-15, Jordan discloses a computer system for handling authorization to unlock a charging inlet of a vehicle (see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0035]), wherein the computer system comprises processing circuitry configured to:
obtain, from a requester, a request for authorization to unlock the charging inlet, wherein the request comprises an identification, ID, of the requester (via receiving a request from a nomadic device of a requestor (NDR) 314, wherien the request includes a phone number/email address (ID) of the requestor; see paragraph [0049]);
determine, based on the ID of the requester, to deny or grant the request for authorization to unlock the charging inlet (via forwarding the request to the nomadic device of a owner (NDO) 316 to deny or grant the request; see paragraph [0050]);
when the request has been granted, provide instructions to the charging inlet to authorize unlocking of the charging inlet (in response to the receiving authorization from the NDO 316 unlocking charge port locking mechanism 304; see paragraph [0052]-[0053]); and
With regards to the limitation of “to obtain, from the charging inlet, a confirmation that the unlocking has been authorized and performed”, Jordan discloses that NDR 314 may transmit a phone number or email address of the requestor via the NFC system 210 as part of the request. The charge system controller 306 may then send a response to the NDR 314 via the email address or the phone number. In some configurations, the charge port 134 may include an indicator (e.g., an LED or display) that may provide feedback to the NDR 314 user. For example, the LED may be flashed at a first rate to indicate that the request was received and sent to the NDO 316. The LED may be flashed at a second rate if the request is denied and may be turned on without flashing if the request is granted. So, Jordan discloses that charge system controller can transmit a response to the unlock request or indicate unlocking via LED. Form the teaching of Jordan (namely paragraph [0049]) it would have been obvious that the response to the NDR 314 would indicate lock/unlock status. However, in order to further support the Examiner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to obtain a confirmation that unlocking has been authorized and performed, Gerhardt discloses the steps of obtaining a confirmation that the unlocking has been authorized and performed (see paragraph [0054] and [0122]).
From the teaching of Gerhardt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Jordan to include the function of obtain unlocking confirmation as taught by Gerhardt in order to notify the user that the status of the locking system has changed.
So, Jordan discloses unlocking a lock (charging inlet) based on a user request, however it does not disclose that the request for authorization to unlock is for a plurality of vehicles (locks).
Debord discloses a computer system, for handing authorization to unlock locks, obtaining a request for authorization to unlock wherein the request for authorization to unlock is for a plurality of locks (see fig. 4; also see paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
From the teaching of Debord, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Jordan to include the function of requesting unlocking of plurality of locks as taught by Debord in order to allow a user authorized to unlock plurality of locks to access plurality of access points.
Even though Jordan does not explicitly disclose the request for authorization is determined to be granted when the ID of the requester is amongst predetermined authorized IDs; and wherein the request for authorization is determined to be denied when the ID of the requester is not amongst predetermined authorized IDs. The Examiner took official notice (Non-final rejection mailed 8/20/2025) that it is well known in the art to receives an ID, compare the ID to the store list of authorized IDs and perform unlocking based on the comparison (see Twigger US Pub 2025/0135925 paragraph [0020]), since applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s assertion in the response filed 11/19/2025 the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.3C). However, Applicant challenges the official notice in the response filed 6/02/2026. Examiner does not agree with the traversal of the official notice, since to adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate (MPEP 2144.03 C).
However in order to expedite the prosecution, Twigger discloses a system for unlocking a charging inlet (charging port) of a vehicle, wherein the request for authorization is determined to be granted when the ID of the requestor (operator identifier) is amongst predetermined authorized IDs and wherein the request for authorization is determined to be denied when the ID of the requester is not amongst predetermined authorized IDs (via disclosing the step of comparing the operator identifier against a list of authorized operators. In an event that the operator identifier corresponds to an authorized operator, the charging security device is configured to allow the state of the lock to be changed and in an event that the operator identifier does not correspond to an authorized operator, the charging security device is configured to prevent the state of the lock from being changed; see paragraph [0027]).
From the teaching of Twigger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Jordan et Gerhardt and Debord to compare received identifier against a list of authorized identifiers as taught by Twigger in order to allow plurality of authorized operators to unlock the charging port.
As of claim 2, Jordan discloses that the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the confirmation has been obtained, provide, to the requester, information indicating that the request for authorization to unlock the charging inlet has been granted and that charging inlet is ready to be unlocked (via sending a response to the NDR 314 using the email/phone number provided during the unlocking request and indicating the request status via the indicator (LED or display); see paragraphs [0008] and [0049]).
As of claim 3, Jordan discloses that the confirmation comprises information that the unlocking has been performed (via sending a response to the NDR 314 using the email/phone number provided during the unlocking request and indicating the request status via the indicator (LED or display); see paragraphs [0008] and [0049]).
As of claim 4, Jordan discloses that the instructions provided to the charging inlet comprises information indicating that the requester is authorized to unlock the charging inlet (via disclosing that in response to the receiving authorization from the NDO 316 unlocking charge port locking mechanism 304; see paragraph [0052]-[0053]).
As of claim 6, Jordan discloses that the request for authorization is determined to be granted or denied based on user input indicating grant or denial of the request (via based on owner input indicating grant or denial of the request; see paragraph [0046]).
As of claim 7, Jordan discloses that the vehicle is accessible by the computer system or a user of the computer system, and wherein the vehicle is inaccessible to the requester (in the system of Jordan the vehicle is accessible to the owner but not the requestor; see paragraph [0038]).
As of claim 8, Jordan discloses that the instructions to the charging inlet to authorize unlocking of the charging inlet comprises activation instructions for activating an actuator of the charging inlet (via driving an electrical actuator of the charge port locking mechanism; see paragraph [041]).
As of claim 10, Jordan discloses that the computer system is remotely located from the vehicle and the requester (Jordan discloses that the exemplary processes may be executed by a computing system in communication with a vehicle computing system. Such a system may include, but is not limited to, a wireless device (e.g., and without limitation, a mobile phone) or a remote computing system (e.g., and without limitation, a server) connected through the wireless device. Collectively, such systems may be referred to as vehicle associated computing systems (VACS; see paragraph [0035]).
As of claim 11, Jordan discloses a vehicle comprising at least part of a computer system of claim 1 and a charging inlet (via vehicle 112; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0035]).
As of claim 12, Jordan discloses an actuator configured to unlock the charging inlet (via driving an electrical actuator of the charge port locking mechanism; see paragraph [041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights