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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8-9, 11-15, 17, and 18-19 as being unpatentable over Rao et al., US12425262 (hereinafter referred to as Rao), in view of Cooper et al., US10840735 (hereinafter referred to as Cooper).
In regards to claim 1, Rao teaches a computer-implemented (controller; [Col. 17, Ln. 65-Col. 18, Ln. 8]) method (implicit for the system) for preventing (disconnect circuits, to prevent; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) electrical circuit (system or control system 4310; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) overload (overload; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]), comprising: determining (to anticipate; [Col. 17, Ln. 65-Col. 18, Ln. 8]), by one or more (implicit with the processor for each of the appliances plus the one for the circuit breaker panel; [Col. 17, Ln. 65-Col. 18, Ln. 8]) processors (MCU in IoT module examples are 1814 & 1824, 2153, or 2200 & 2207; [Fig. 18, 21-22]), an electrical load (load of main circuit breaker 2610; [Fig. 26]) of an electrical circuit, the electrical circuit including a plurality (implicit; [Fig. 26]) of power control units (controllable circuit breakers 2614; [Fig. 26]) each electrically connected (implicit; [Fig. 26]) to an electronic device (load of each controllable circuit breakers 2614; [Fig. 26]), the plurality of power control units each being electrically connected (implicit of a circuit breaker panel; [Fig. 26]) to an electrical output component (circuit breaker panel 2600; [Fig. 26])powered through a circuit breaker (main breaker 2610; [Fig. 26]) set to trip at a safety threshold (threshold of the main breaker 2610; [Fig. 26]) for the electrical circuit; receiving, by the one or more processors (Examiner’s Note: In order for an IoT module to work in communicating with the appliances an IoT module must be installed in or in series with the appliance. The IoT module must have a processor in order to operate. The appliance IoTs communicate to the circuit breaker IoT module. Then, the CB’s IoT module communicates with the controllable circuit breakers 2614. Therefore, the processors from the appliances send the information.), from each of the power control units an electrical load status (appliances’ cyclic power characteristics; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) of the electrical circuit including the determined electrical load (disaggregated load identifications; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]); determining (anticipate; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]), by the one or more processors, using the received electrical load status (one of the disaggregated load identifications; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) from each of the power control units, when a new electrical load (new appliance power demand) is added (historical usage; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) to the electrical circuit, the new electrical load (an unactive to active appliance) corresponding to a new electronic device (newly added appliance to system through the GUI; [Fig. 44]).
Rao does not teach determining, by the one or more processors, when the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold; and responsive to determining that the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold, denying, by the one or more processors, power to the new electronic device to prevent tripping the circuit breaker.
Cooper teaches determining, by the one or more processors, (the load control circuit will; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) when the new electrical load (a low priority load; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold (nearing overload; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]); and responsive to determining that the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold, denying (prevent additional loading; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]), by the one or more processors, (the load control circuit will; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) power to the new electronic device to prevent tripping the circuit breaker (prevent a low priority load from being connected to prevent additional loading & genset is nearing overload; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in order to incorporate determining, by the one or more processors, when the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold; and responsive to determining that the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold, denying, by the one or more processors, power to the new electronic device to prevent tripping the circuit breaker as taught by Cooper.
In regards to claim 2, Rao teaches wherein the electronic device includes an IoT device (In order for an IoT system to work, there must be a communication module or IoT device with the electronic device.) capable of communicating with each power control unit (Examiner’s Note: The electronic device communicates with the IoT module which communicates with the computer [Col. 36, Ln. 33-40] in the control system or control board [Col. 33, Ln. 9-16] which then communicates with the controllable relays [Col. 9, Ln. 5-8] & Fig. 24]).
In regards to claim 3, Rao teaches wherein each power control unit is electrically connected to a respective electronic device (The electronic device is the inherent load of the controllable relay’s power.), and each power control unit is communicatively connected to all power control units within a network and communicatively connected to each respective electronic device(Examiner’s Note: The electronic device communicates with the IoT module which communicates with the computer [Col. 36, Ln. 33-40] in the control system or control board [Col. 33, Ln. 9-16] which then communicates with the controllable relays [Col. 9, Ln. 5-8] & Fig. 24]. There is only one control board, therefore, only one IoT module per circuit breaker panel [Fig. 18 & 24].).
In regards to claim 4, Rao teaches wherein the electronic device includes a priority (“Must have”, “Nice to have”, & “Nonessential”; [Fig. 44]) to access the electrical circuit.
In regards to claim 5, Rao does not teach wherein each power control unit is configured to deny power to a lowest priority electronic device at the electrical output component to prevent a trip of the circuit breaker.
Cooper teaches wherein each power control unit is configured to deny power to a lowest priority electronic device (prevent a low priority load from being connected to prevent additional loading of the genset & genset is nearing overload; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) at the electrical output component (circuit breaker panel, Rao) to prevent a trip of the circuit breaker (decrease the possibility of a circuit breaker trip; [Col. 6, Ln. 1-4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in order to incorporate wherein each power control unit is configured to deny power to a lowest priority electronic device at the electrical output component to prevent a trip of the circuit breaker as taught by Cooper. The motivation for doing so would be to have additional protection mechanisms to prevent an unnecessary power outage.
In regards to claim 9, Rao teaches wherein the preference set by the one or more users is further established using an external app (GUI; [Col. 37, Ln. 59-Col. 38, Ln. 17] & [Fig. 44]) running on a user device (phone or user device; [Col. 37, Ln. 59-Col. 38, Ln. 17] & [Fig. 4]) and communicated to each power control unit (operating life of a load source; [Col. 37, Ln. 59-Col. 38, Ln. 17]).
In regards to claim 11, Rao teaches a computer system for preventing electrical circuit overload, comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories (memory equipment 2158; [Col. 16, Ln. 10-32]), one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices (store… suitable data… in connection with the system applications; [Col. 17, Ln. 10-15]), and program instructions (applications; [Col. 17, Ln. 10-15]) stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices (implicit of an API; [Col. 17, Ln. 10-15]) for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (software development; [Col. 17, Ln. 10-15]), wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising: determining (to anticipate; [Col. 17, Ln. 65-Col. 18, Ln. 8]), by one or more (implicit with the processor for each of the appliances plus the one for the circuit breaker panel; [Col. 17, Ln. 65-Col. 18, Ln. 8]) processors (MCU in IoT module examples are 1814 & 1824, 2153, or 2200 & 2207; [Fig. 18, 21-22]), an electrical load (load of main circuit breaker 2610; [Fig. 26]) of an electrical circuit, the electrical circuit including a plurality (implicit; [Fig. 26]) of power control units (controllable circuit breakers 2614; [Fig. 26]) each electrically connected (implicit; [Fig. 26]) to an electronic device (load of each controllable circuit breakers 2614; [Fig. 26]), the plurality of power control units each being electrically connected (implicit of a circuit breaker panel; [Fig. 26]) to an electrical output component (circuit breaker panel 2600; [Fig. 26])powered through a circuit breaker (main breaker 2610; [Fig. 26]) set to trip at a safety threshold (threshold of the main breaker 2610; [Fig. 26]) for the electrical circuit; receiving, by the one or more processors (Examiner’s Note: In order for an IoT module to work in communicating with the appliances an IoT module must be installed in or in series with the appliance. The IoT module must have a processor in order to operate. The appliance IoTs communicate to the circuit breaker IoT module. Then, the CB’s IoT module communicates with the controllable circuit breakers 2614. Therefore, the processors from the appliances send the information.), from each of the power control units an electrical load status (appliances’ cyclic power characteristics; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) of the electrical circuit including the determined electrical load (disaggregated load identifications; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]); determining (anticipate; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]), by the one or more processors, using the received electrical load status (one of the disaggregated load identifications; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) from each of the power control units, when a new electrical load (new appliance power demand) is added (historical usage; [Col. 37, Ln. 21-27]) to the electrical circuit, the new electrical load (an unactive to active appliance) corresponding to a new electronic device (newly added appliance to system through the GUI; [Fig. 44]).
Rao does not teach determining, by the one or more processors, when the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold; and responsive to determining that the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold, denying, by the one or more processors, power to the new electronic device to prevent tripping the circuit breaker.
Cooper teaches determining, by the one or more processors, (the load control circuit will; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) when the new electrical load (a low priority load; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold (nearing overload; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]); and responsive to determining that the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold, denying (prevent additional loading; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]), by the one or more processors, (the load control circuit will; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) power to the new electronic device to prevent tripping the circuit breaker (prevent a low priority load from being connected to prevent additional loading & genset is nearing overload; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in order to incorporate determining, by the one or more processors, when the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold; and responsive to determining that the new electrical load will cause the electrical load of the electrical circuit to exceed the safety threshold, denying, by the one or more processors, power to the new electronic device to prevent tripping the circuit breaker as taught by Cooper.
In regards to claim 12, Rao teaches wherein the electronic device includes an IoT device (In order for an IoT system to work, there must be a communication module or IoT device with the electronic device.) capable of communicating with each power control unit (Examiner’s Note: The electronic device communicates with the IoT module which communicates with the computer [Col. 36, Ln. 33-40] in the control system or control board [Col. 33, Ln. 9-16] which then communicates with the controllable relays [Col. 9, Ln. 5-8] & Fig. 24]).
In regards to claim 13, Rao teaches wherein each power control unit is electrically connected to a respective electronic device (The electronic device is the inherent load of the controllable relay’s power.), and each power control unit is communicatively connected to all power control units within a network and communicatively connected to each respective electronic device(Examiner’s Note: The electronic device communicates with the IoT module which communicates with the computer [Col. 36, Ln. 33-40] in the control system or control board [Col. 33, Ln. 9-16] which then communicates with the controllable relays [Col. 9, Ln. 5-8] & Fig. 24]. There is only one control board, therefore, only one IoT module per circuit breaker panel [Fig. 18 & 24].).
In regards to claim 14, Rao teaches wherein the electronic device includes a priority (“Must have”, “Nice to have”, & “Nonessential”; [Fig. 44]) to access the electrical circuit.
In regards to claim 15, Rao does not teach wherein each power control unit is configured to deny power to a lowest priority electronic device at the electrical output component to prevent a trip of the circuit breaker.
Cooper teaches wherein each power control unit is configured to deny power to a lowest priority electronic device (prevent a low priority load from being connected to prevent additional loading of the genset & genset is nearing overload; [Col. 57, Ln. 48-53]) at the electrical output component (circuit breaker panel, Rao) to prevent a trip of the circuit breaker (decrease the possibility of a circuit breaker trip; [Col. 6, Ln. 1-4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in order to incorporate wherein each power control unit is configured to deny power to a lowest priority electronic device at the electrical output component to prevent a trip of the circuit breaker as taught by Cooper. The motivation for doing so would be to have additional protection mechanisms to prevent an unnecessary power outage.
In regards to claim 19, Rao teaches wherein the preference set by the one or more users is further established using an external app (GUI; [Col. 37, Ln. 59-Col. 38, Ln. 17] & [Fig. 44]) running on a user device (phone or user device; [Col. 37, Ln. 59-Col. 38, Ln. 17] & [Fig. 4]) and communicated to each power control unit (operating life of a load source; [Col. 37, Ln. 59-Col. 38, Ln. 17]).
Claim(s) 6-7 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al., US12425262 (hereinafter referred to as Rao), in view of Cooper et al., US10840735 (hereinafter referred to as Cooper) and in further view of Davis et al., US20170344042 (hereinafter referred to as Davis).
In regards to claim 6, Rao & Cooper do not teach wherein each power control unit is plugged into a corresponding electrical output component, and each electronic device is plugged into a corresponding power control unit.
Davis teaches wherein each power control unit (switch unit 400; [FIG. 6]) is plugged into a corresponding electrical output component (outlet in Fig. 12A), and each electronic device (plug 40; [Fig. 12A]) (appliance, Rao) is plugged into (implicit in Fig. 12A) a corresponding power control unit
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao & Cooper in order to incorporate wherein each power control unit is plugged into a corresponding electrical output component, and each electronic device is plugged into a corresponding power control unit as taught by Davis. In this embodiment, the power control unit is not defined by Rao, but by Davis. The motivation would be to easily upgrade an existing electrical system with pluggable loads.
In regards to claim 7, Rao & Cooper do not teach wherein the power control unit is a built-in feature within the electronic device.
Davis teaches wherein the power control unit (PSU 402 with the relay 410; [Fig. 6]) is a built-in feature (implicit; [Fig. 6]) within the electronic device (switch unit 400; [Fig. 6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao & Cooper in order to incorporate wherein the power control unit is a built-in feature within the electronic device as taught by Davis. In this embodiment, the electronic device is no longer taught by Rao, but by Davis and is the switch unit 400 taught by Davis. The motivation would be to combine the IoT transceiver with the power control unit into one package for commerciality.
In regards to claim 16, Rao & Cooper do not teach wherein each power control unit is plugged into a corresponding electrical output component, and each electronic device is plugged into a corresponding power control unit.
Davis teaches wherein each power control unit (switch unit 400; [FIG. 6]) is plugged into a corresponding electrical output component (outlet in Fig. 12A), and each electronic device (plug 40; [Fig. 12A]) (appliance, Rao) is plugged into (implicit in Fig. 12A) a corresponding power control unit
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao & Cooper in order to incorporate wherein each power control unit is plugged into a corresponding electrical output component, and each electronic device is plugged into a corresponding power control unit as taught by Davis. In this embodiment, the power control unit is not defined by Rao, but by Davis. The motivation would be to easily upgrade an existing electrical system with pluggable loads.
In regards to claim 17, Rao & Cooper do not teach wherein the power control unit is a built-in feature within the electronic device.
Davis teaches wherein the power control unit (PSU 402 with the relay 410; [Fig. 6]) is a built-in feature (implicit; [Fig. 6]) within the electronic device (switch unit 400; [Fig. 6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao & Cooper in order to incorporate wherein the power control unit is a built-in feature within the electronic device as taught by Davis. In this embodiment, the electronic device is no longer taught by Rao, but by Davis and is the switch unit 400 taught by Davis. The motivation would be to combine the IoT transceiver with the power control unit into one package for commerciality.
Claim(s) 10 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al., US12425262 (hereinafter referred to as Rao), in view of Cooper et al., US10840735 (hereinafter referred to as Cooper) and in further view of Tuya Smart Wifi Circuit Breaker, NPL U, (hereinafter referred to as NPL U).
In regards to claim 10, Rao teaches wherein each power control unit further includes a first LED indicator and a second LED indicator (one or more LEDs; [Col. 10, Ln. 30-41]) for: displaying, by the one or more processors, the electrical load status (breaker is open, closed, or tripped; [Col. 10, Ln. 30-41]) of each electronic device (implicit because the LED is incorporated into the controllable circuit breaker) using the first LED indicator within the plurality of power control units for indicating whether a current electronic device can be powered on (a fault condition; [Col. 10, Ln. 30-41]).
Rao & Cooper do not teach displaying, by the one or more processors, a network connectivity status using the second LED indicator within the plurality of power control units.
NPL U teaches displaying, by the one or more processors, a network connectivity status using the second LED indicator (WiFi Indicator, see below; [Pg. 7]) within the plurality of power control units.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao & Cooper in order to incorporate displaying, by the one or more processors, a network connectivity status using the second LED indicator within the plurality of power control units as taught by NPL U. The Tuya Wifi circuit breaker also shows the first LED indicator on the right side immediately below the toggle switch. The motivation for combination is to utilize a device to provide ease of troubleshooting and positive feedback during set up. One could select a relay with a Wi-Fi connectivity LED.
In regards to claim 20, Rao teaches wherein each power control unit further includes a first LED indicator and a second LED indicator (one or more LEDs; [Col. 10, Ln. 30-41]) for: displaying, by the one or more processors, the electrical load status (breaker is open, closed, or tripped; [Col. 10, Ln. 30-41]) of each electronic device (implicit because the LED is incorporated into the controllable circuit breaker) using the first LED indicator within the plurality of power control units for indicating whether a current electronic device can be powered on (a fault condition; [Col. 10, Ln. 30-41]).
Rao & Cooper do not teach displaying, by the one or more processors, a network connectivity status using the second LED indicator within the plurality of power control units.
NPL U teaches displaying, by the one or more processors, a network connectivity status using the second LED indicator (WiFi Indicator, see below; [Pg. 7]) within the plurality of power control units.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao & Cooper in order to incorporate displaying, by the one or more processors, a network connectivity status using the second LED indicator within the plurality of power control units as taught by NPL U. The Tuya Wifi circuit breaker also shows the first LED indicator on the right side immediately below the toggle switch. The motivation for combination is to utilize a device to provide ease of troubleshooting and positive feedback during set up. One could select a relay with a Wi-Fi connectivity LED.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 18 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. The closest prior arts are Proctor et al., US5844326A and Carlino et al., US20160181782A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838