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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 6/5/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 24 and 25 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 24 depends on claim 15 as seen above. Claim 15 requires that the security device prevents the use of the gripping means. However, claim 24 requires that it prevents movement of the cable. So, it is unclear what is claimed here.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, claim 15 will be interpreted as the security device used to prevent movement of the cable. 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) 12-14, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 10,941,593 to Krishnan et al (Krishnan) in view of WO 2015050516 to Ozkan et al (Ozkan).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
819
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Krishnan discloses a motor vehicle (10) that comprises an arrangement for unlocking a lock (24) of a bonnet (14).
The arrangement comprises a gripping means (32) and a cable (34) connecting the lock of the bonnet to the gripping means.
Wherein, the gripping means is accessible to a user from outside a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle and the cable is positioned entirely outside the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle.
Krishnan discloses that the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle and the gripping means is located on a charging port of the electric vehicle.
Krishnan fails to disclose that the gripping means is the flap of the charging port. Krishnan discloses that the gripping means (32) is a handle secured within the charging port.
PNG
media_image3.png
404
1284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ozkan teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an arrangement to for unlocking a lock (2) of a bonnet, that comprises a gripping means as a flap (7) that is pivotably moved to operate a cable (10) connected to the lock.
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 gripping means described by Krishnan directly connected to the flap, as taught by Ozkan, in order to provide a simpler way to operate the lock of the bonnet with less members.
As to claim 13, Krishnan discloses that the bonnet (14) is a front bonnet of the motor vehicle.
As to claim 14, Krishnan discloses that the gripping means (32) is located on the front or rear bonnet, or on a front or rear wing, or a front or rear bumper, or a front grille (front wing).
As to claim 21, Krishnan discloses that the vehicle further comprises a charging cable (not shown) for charging the battery of the electric motor vehicle positioned in a housing (battery housing) located under the bonnet of the vehicle.
As to claim 22, Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, teaches a method for unlocking the bonnet of the motor vehicle that comprises rotating the gripping means (Ozkan 7) of the arrangement, the gripping means being located outside the passenger compartment (Krishnan 32).
As to claim 23, Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, teaches the arrangement for unlocking a hood as claimed. Krishnan discloses that the vehicle is an electric vehicle with a flap of a charging port.
At the instant, Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, is capable of charging the motor vehicle by opening the flap of the charging port of the vehicle between a closed position and a stable locking position in which the charging cable is rigidly secured to the charging port;
pulling on the gripping means of the arrangement for unlocking the bonnet of the vehicle, the gripping means being the flap of the charging port;
taking hold of the charging cable in the housing located under the bonnet of the vehicle;
connecting an electric vehicle charging terminal to a charging interface of the port via the charging cable; and immobilizing the cable while the vehicle is charging (with his hand or when the charging cable is connected to the port).
Wherein all steps of the method take place outside the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 10,941,593 to Krishnan et al (Krishnan) in view of WO 2015050516 to Ozkan et al (Ozkan) and further in view of US Pat No 4,102,164 to Barbush.
As to claim 15, Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, fails to disclose that the motor vehicle further comprises a security device configured to prevent movement of the cable to unlock the lock of the bonnet by an unauthorized person.
PNG
media_image4.png
678
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Barbush teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device configured to prevent the use of a cable by preventing the use of a gripping means (63) to unlock the lock (35) of the bonnet by an unauthorized person.
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 vehicle described by Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, with a security device, as taught by Barbush, in order to prevent the use of the gripping means.
As to claim 16, Barbush teaches that the arrangement comprises an authentication means (63, 64) which interacts with the security device such that the gripping means is configured to be used only when an identification object identifying a user is authenticated by the authentication means (only the user with the key).
As to claim 18, Krishnan discloses that the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle with a flap of a charging port.
Ozkan teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an arrangement to for unlocking a lock (2) of a bonnet, that comprises a gripping means as a flap (7) that is pivotably moved to operate a cable (10) connected to the lock.
Barbush teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device configured to prevent use of a gripping means (63) to unlock the lock (35) of the bonnet by an unauthorized person.
As to claim 19, Barbush teaches that the authentication means interacts with the security element of the lock of the motor vehicle such that the authentication means is configured to unlock the cable after authentication of the identification object by releasing a mechanical connection (engagement of latch 77 with slider 13). Krishnan discloses that the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle with a flap of a charging port.
As to claim 20, Barbush teaches an identification object (ignition key) configured to interact with a locking/unlocking device of the motor vehicle to allow or prevent access to the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, and the identification object is configured to interact with the authentication means of the arrangement to make it possible to unlock the lock of the bonnet by pivoting a flap and/or said locking device of a charging port of the motor vehicle (the ignition key will operate the latch 77, allowing the authentication means to unlock the hood lock).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18-20, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 10,941,593 to Krishnan et al (Krishnan) in view of WO 2015050516 to Ozkan et al (Ozkan) and further in view of US Pat No 11,725,429 to Fontanet et al (Fontanet).
As to claim 15, Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, fails to disclose that the motor vehicle further comprises a security device configured to prevent movement of the cable to unlock the lock of the bonnet by an unauthorized person.
PNG
media_image5.png
559
982
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fontanet teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device configured to prevent the use of a cable (4, 10) to unlock a lock (by 32) by an unauthorized person.
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 vehicle described by Krishnan, as modified by Ozkan, with a security device, as taught by Fontanet, in order to prevent the use of the gripping means.
As to claim 16, Fontanet teaches that the arrangement comprises an authentication means which interacts with the security device such that the gripping means is configured to be used only when an identification object identifying a user is authenticated by the authentication means (col 4 line 41, sensor senses the presence of an identified user hand and send signal with respect to that information).
As to claim 18, Krishnan discloses that the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle with a flap of a charging port.
Ozkan teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an arrangement to for unlocking a lock (2) of a bonnet, that comprises a gripping means as a flap (7) that is pivotably moved to operate a cable (10) connected to the lock.
Fontanet teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device configured to prevent use of a cable (4) to unlock a lock by an unauthorized person.
As to claim 19, Fontanet teaches that the authentication means interacts with the security element of the lock of the motor vehicle such that the authentication means is configured to unlock the cable after authentication of the identification object by releasing a mechanical connection (col. 4 line 41). Krishnan discloses that the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle with a flap of a charging port.
As to claim 20, Fontanet teaches an identification object (sensor) configured to interact with a locking/unlocking device of the motor vehicle to allow or prevent access to the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, and the identification object is configured to interact with the authentication means of the arrangement to make it possible to unlock the lock. Krishnan discloses pivoting a flap and/or the locking device of a charging port of the motor vehicle.
As to claim 24, Krishnan discloses that the charging port includes a bowl that is covered by the flap.
Fontanet teaches that the security device includes a fixed part (1) fixed to a member and a movable part (at 2).
The movable part includes a finger (12) configured to move perpendicular to the cable (4) between a locked position (fig 3) in which the movable part contacts the cable to prevent the cable from moving, and an unlocked position (fig 5) in which the movable part is separated from the cable.
As to claim 25, Fontanet teaches that the cable includes a slider (10) that has a hole (18). The finger is inserted into the hole of the slider to prevent the cable from moving.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing objection, the applicant argues that the invention is shown in fig 10. Here are figs 9 and 10:
PNG
media_image6.png
502
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown, the figures just show some squares, nothing else. No one with ordinary skill in the art will look at these figures and come up with the claimed structure/method.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the objection is maintained.
With respect to the claim objection, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the applicant argues that Ozkan fails to disclose that the flap is for a charging port.
As mentioned above in the rejection, Krishnan already disclosed that the gripping means (32) is a handle secured within the charging port.
Ozkan is only used to demonstrate that it is well known in the art to provide a gripping means as a flap that is pivotably moved to operate a cable attached to the flap and connected to the lock.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to new claims 24 and 25, a new rejection has been made on the record.
Since no argument is persuasive and the examiner is maintaining the position shown above, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can file an appeal brief as his next response in order to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
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 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 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights