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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation “a signal about release of locking by the electronic lock”, should ‘about’ be changed to ‘prohibiting’.
Dependent claims 2-10 are objected to for depending on an objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention with little additional change to the claim language.
Instant claim 1 is rejected as being obvious in view of claims 1 and claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653. Instant claim 1 recites identical similar limitations of parent except for the communications aspect, however, this recitation is also mentioned in parent claim 4.
Instant claim 2 is rejected as being obvious to U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 claim 2.
Instant claim 3 is rejected as being obvious to U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 claim 3.
Instant claim 4 is rejected as being obvious to U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 claim 4.
Instant claim 5 is rejected as being obvious to U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 claim 5.
Instant claim 6 is rejected as being obvious to U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 claim 6.
Instant claim 7 is rejected in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 as obvious and well known in the art as typical powering means to have the external power feed feeding AC power.
Instant claim 8 is rejected in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653 as obvious and well known in the art as a safety feature for a vehicle controller to lock a vehicle inlet and plug before supplying power.
Instant claim 11 is rejected as being obvious in view of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11 would be allowable if they overcome the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections, and if independent claims 1 and 11 are rewritten to overcome the claim objections. Claims 9-10 are 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; and if independent claims 1 and 11 are rewritten to overcome the claim objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose the combination of limitations presented in the claimed invention. Similar to the explanation of reasons for allowance in the parent U.S. Patent No. 12,420,653, the closest prior art of Zhang (US 12012073 B2), either alone or in combination, does not expressly teach all of the limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose charge management which based on the power output in the power transmission is equal to or lower than the prescribed value at the time of reception of the request for release of the locking by the electronic lock from the user, the vehicle controller releases locking by the electronic lock thereof. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are considered to be allowable.
Dependent claims 2-10 dependent, directly or indirectly, from allowable claim 1 and are therefore indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 08/22/2026
Prosecution Insights