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 .
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 21 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.
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 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-23 of copending Application No. 18/878986 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current claims require a motor vehicle that comprises an arrangement for unlocking a lock of a bonnet.
The arrangement comprises a gripping means and a cable 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.
These and other limitations are presented int eh ‘986 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Pat No 10,941,593 to Krishnan et al (Krishnan).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, 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.
As to claim 12, 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 15 Krishnan discloses that the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle and the gripping means is located on a charging port of the electric vehicle.
As to claim 18, 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 20, Krishnan discloses a method for unlocking the front hood of the motor vehicle that comprises pulling on the grip means of the arrangement, the grip means being outside the passenger compartment.
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) 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 21 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 US Pat No 4,102,164 to Barbush.
As to claim 13, Krishnan fails to disclose that the motor vehicle further comprises a security device configured to prevent use of the gripping means to unlock the lock of the bonnet by an unauthorized person.
PNG
media_image2.png
678
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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 with a security device, as taught by Barbush, in order to prevent the use of the gripping means.
As to claims 14 and 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 17, 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).
As to claim 19, 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 21, Krishnan, as modified by Barbush, teaches a method for charging the motor vehicle that comprises opening the charging port of the vehicle; pulling the grip means of the arrangement to unlock the front hood of the vehicle, the grip means being positioned inside the charging port; grasping a charging cable in a recess which is underneath the front hood of the vehicle; connecting an electric vehicle charging terminal to a charging interface of the port via the charging cable; and locking the grip means while the vehicle is charging, wherein all steps of the method are executed outside the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle.
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 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights