DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 .
Claims 1-5 and 16 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 16 are rejected below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0136385) in view of Baldassare (U.S. PG Pub. 2010/0019574) in view of Pugh (U.S. PG Pub. US 20120197453 A1).
As to claim 1, Thornton teaches a system for managing energy consumption comprising: one or more electrical and/or mechanical connection for connecting one or more circuit board to one or more circuit breaker and/or one or more circuit breaker panel[0024], the one or more circuit board including at least one node connected to the one or more circuit breaker and to one or more electrical load, the at least one node including at least one voltage or current sensor and at least one relay[0042]; one or more integrated circuit chip ("IC") in communication with both the at least one voltage or current sensor and the at least one relay, the at least one relay configurable to be changed from an open position or an off state to a closed position or an on state, and the at least one relay configurable to be changed from the closed position or the on state to the open position or the off state[0054, 0024]; and one or more link for wired or wireless communication with the one or more IC, the one or more IC[ 0054],
Thornton teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not teach all of the claimed invention, however, this is an obvious variation and is taught by Baldassare as follows:
As to claim 1, Baldassare teaches at least one node including at least one load voltage or current sensor for measuring energy consumption of an individual electrical load circuit and at least one relay to control the individual electrical load circuit[0090]; one or more premises voltage or current sensor measuring energy consumption on a premises[0090]; receive sensor information from the one or more premises voltage or current sensor in real-time[0034, 0090]; based on sensor information from the two or mode nodes (current sensors) and the sensor information from the one or more premises voltage or sensor or current sensor (total sensed for the power bus) automatically instruct the system to turn on or off electricity supplied to the one or more electrical load will maintain or bring the energy consumption on the premises below a pre-programmed level[0090] based on sensor information from the two or more nodes and sensor information from the one or more premises voltage or current sensors, select which one or more of the one or more electrical loads that were previously turned off can be turned back on while maintaining the energy consumption on the premises below the pre-programmed level, and automatically instruct the system to turn on electricity supplied to the selected one or more of the one or more electrical loads [0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Baldassare into the system and method of Thornton. The motivation to combine is that Baldassare allows for a user to make the decision in real-time thereby allowing the keep load energized that they want at a current time [0091].
The combination of Thornton in view of Baldassare teach the majority of the invention, but fail to explicitly teach that simultaneously or substantially simultaneously receive sensor information from two or more nodes. However, this is an obvious variation and is taught by Pugh as follows:
As to claim 1, Pugh teaches including at least one node electrically connected between one or more of the one or more circuit breakers and one or more electrical loads, the at least one node including at least one load voltage or current sensor for measuring energy consumption of an individual electrical load circuit and at least one relay to individually control one or more respective circuits associated with the individual one or more electrical loads[0027-0028].
As to claim 3, Thornton teaches wherein the one or more IC is located separate from the one or more circuit board[0054].
As to claim 4, Thornton teaches wherein the one or more IC is located in at least one of a solar inverter, an inverter, an energy storage system, a gateway device, a battery, a smart thermostat, an electric vehicle charger, an electric vehicle, an internet of things ("IoT") enabled device, a server, a computer, a computer processing unit, or another system for managing energy consumption [0054].
As to claim 16, at least Pugh teaches wherein the one or more circuit breaker panels comprises a busbar, and the plurality of circuit breakers are directly attached to the busbar (fig. 1, [0028]).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0136385) in view of Baldassare (U.S. PG Pub. 2010/0019574) in view of Pugh (U.S. PG Pub. US 20120197453 A1) in view of Lakshmanan (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0358722).
Thornton in view of Baldassare and Pugh teaches all of the independent claims, but fail to teach some of the dependent claim limitations, however, this taught by Lakshmanan as follows:
As to claim 2, Lakshmanan teaches wherein the node further includes an electromechanical bypass to change the relay from the closed position or the on state to the open position or the off state, to change the relay from the open position or the off state to the closed position or the on state, or to lock the relay in the open position or the off state or the closed position or the on state, regardless of instructions received from the one or more IC[0044]. Lakshmanan teaches that a system will bypass a user’s desire to close a switch and keep the switch open until safety conditions are met.
As to claim 5, Lakshmanan teaches wherein the one or more IC comprises at least two ICs, a first IC in communication with the at least one load voltage or current sensor(element 104 and 112), and Thornton teaches a second IC in communication with the at least one relay[0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the
effective filing date to include the teachings of Lakshmanan into the system and methods of Thornton. The motivation to combine is that Lakshmanan teaches that user can receive indication of an unsafe condition and open a circuit breaker[0044].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-23-06 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly amended claimed limitations are not present. Examiner disagrees and these can be seen above with new citations. Furthermore, Applicant alleges that Thornton teaches away from claim 1, however, this does not seem to be accurate. The modification of adding in Pugh’s nodes does not stop this advantage, in fact is further creates more advantages as can be seen in paragraph [0028] of Pugh. [0042] of Thornton actually discusses including relays so the combination wouldn’t teach away especially when considering the teachings of Pugh. As such, the combination as a whole teaches all the limitations present in claim 1.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior artreference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It iswell settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in theart. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant'sclaim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a singleprior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, todemonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specificlimitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038,1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319,1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
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 NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights