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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 179, are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim(s) 179; the amended claim language presents claim language including “and data”, so as to require electrical interconnection facilitates communication of electrical power “and data” which constitutes a different claim construction relative to that which is required by the previously examined claim construction in the non-final action mailed on 3/9/26 that only requires communication of electrical power which is hereby deemed as constructively elected and defines a fixed claim construction, as per the MPEP sections below. The office further notes that “data” cannot as a matter of right be presented in a manner that is different with respect to the constructively elected invention defined by claims 169 and 179 which only requires “electrical interconnection facilitates communication of electrical power; whereas the assertion of claim 179 is presented as a claim construction that is different or separate with respect to a power circuit or sensor and control fail safes asserted in claim 169 and/or separate to and unrelated to other previously presented claim constructions. The office hereby notes that the current claim construction causes the claim to be amenable to varying claim constructions which have not been previously examined and constitutes more than one new search including different search strategy, search queries and/or different interpretations thereof to determine allowability thereof.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 179, are herein withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
2. The office herein notes related MPEP excerpts which pertain hereto as follows:
821.03 Claims for Different Invention Added After an Office Action [R-3]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims added by amendment following action by the examiner, MPEP § 818.01, § 818.02(a), to an invention other than previously claimed, should be treated as indicated by 37 CFR 1.145.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
37 C.F.R. 1.145 Subsequent presentation of claims for different invention.
If, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in §§ 1.143 and 1.144
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The action should include form paragraph 8.04.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
¶ 8.04 Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claim [1] directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: [2]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim [3] withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
> A < complete action on all claims to the elected invention should be given.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to the nonelected invention should not be entered. Such an amendment is nonresponsive. Applicant should be notified by using form paragraph 8.26.
818.01 Election Fixed by Action on Claims
Election becomes fixed when the claims in an application have received an action on their merits by the Office
819 Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift [R-3]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The general policy of the Office is not to permit the applicant to shift to claiming another invention after an election is once made and action given on the elected subject matter. Note that the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). When claims are presented which the examiner holds are drawn to an invention other than the one elected, he or she should treat the claims as outlined in MPEP § 821.03.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 169-171, 174-175, 187 and 189-191, 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. Regarding Claim 169; line(s) 11-12 asserts “sensor control fail safes are enabled by sensor based monitoring and control” without presenting any structures deemed to accomplish control including a processor, controller, cpu or gpu etc in electrical communication with one sensor, different sensors and/or different types of sensors based on any particular sensed attributes and/or if sensing and control is accomplish by the same structure or different structures; whereas sensor based monitoring and control only suggests function(s). The office hereby notes that neither of the sensor based monitoring or control by one sensor control fail safe is disposed in each structure or if a plurality of sensor control fails safes are disposed in each structure, and further the assertion is not presented to actually sense and control any particular i.e. mechanical, optical or electrical attributes or characteristics thereof, and thus the office hereby notes that varying sensed attributes include but are not limited to characteristics including power, voltage, current, resistance, capacitance, and/or light etc, may read thereon. As such, the assertion may be accomplished by more than one plausible claim construction which read on different inventions. Note: the applicant appears to insufficiently address the previous 112(b) for sensor(s) and has failed to address by remarks or amendments how control is structurally and functionally accomplished. Going further, “electrically conductive components” in 7 is unclear; whereas line 2 already asserts “electrically conductive components” and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if the same or different electrically conductive components are being asserted.
Regarding Claim(s) 189-191; “each module” is unclear; whereas it appears the term is intended to refer back to each of the modular interconnectable structures, and shall be presented with consistency so as not to be construed as a different or separate features connected to or disposed within each of the modular interconnectable structures—if otherwise intended. Further, in re: claim 189; “a range of monitoring sensors” do not readily refer back to and further limit the alleged sensor based monitoring in the base claim which further suggests the base claim does not assert actual sensor structure; and a range appears to be argued as examples of sensors for the sensor control fail safes on page 5. However, a range of sensors do not necessitate any particular type of sensor or attributes being sensed, and thus the terminology is deemed to read on more than one plausible claim construction, as similarly noted in the base claim. Further, in re: claim 191; varying alleged safety data is asserted without any particular type of sensor to detect any particular data of i.e. system condition, maintenance and reliability, configuration etc.; whereas more than one type of sensor and attribute may be deemed to accomplish the aforementioned since i.e. configuration, maintenance and reliability and/or system condition does not necessitate any one respective attribute and may include and not be limited to mechanical, electrical and/or cooling related attributes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 169-171, 174, 187 and 190, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (Seymour 20110143629).
Regarding Claim 169; Seymour discloses as best understood, a modular interconnectable structure for housing electrically conductive components; the modular interconnectable structure forming part of a system of modular interconnectable structures (as depicted by Fig. 8—whereas 800 constitutes a modular interconnectable system of structures including conductive blocks 801-808, 810-815 and/or including a power source-824 which turns on and provides power to a motor of a motor module-817 which passes electrical current via electrical paths 809, 816--as set forth by para.’s 0023, 0027 and 0029-0030); each modular interconnectable structure comprising: comprising: an enclosure having wall components (whereas the conductive blocks-801-808 and 810-815 are plated to define electrically conductive surfaces which constitutes wall components, and whereas 824 is a block defining a power module and comprises conductive clips 820 on walls thereof, and/or whereas 817 comprises a wall components constituted by conductive clips-819 on walls thereof in which each of the clips electrically couple the conductive blocks 801-808, and 810-815-—as set forth by para.’s 0023, 0027 and 0029) which define an internal volume within the enclosure separated from an exterior of the enclosure by the wall components wherein the enclosure electrically conductive components of a power circuit for communication of electrical signals from the internal volume to the exterior of the wall components of the enclosure (as depicted by Fig. 8—and set forth by para.’s 0023, 0026-0027, and 0029—wherein a conductive paths 809 and 816 are created in and travels through interconnected conductive blocks 810-811 from an interconnected power module-824 and further travels through the conductive blocks 807 and 808, and through an adjacent side of 808 to conductive clips-820 on a wall of the interconnected power module--as set forth by para.’s, wherein 824 further includes DC batteries and coupled to conductive clips-820 at exterior surfaces between 824 and 801 or 810 or connector springs 513-514 therein—as set forth by 500-Fig. 5 so as to constitute electrically conductive components of a power circuit; NOTE: electrically conductive components do not necessitate heat generating components—if so intended), wherein the modular interconnectable structure includes sensor control fail safes for safety verification, providing verification of the electrically conductive components and their interconnection; and wherein the sensor control fail safes are enabled by sensor based monitoring and control of each said modular interconnectable structure within said system of modular interconnectable structures thereby enabling safe operation of the system (whereas para.’s 0003 suggests sensors coupled to a controller, and further wherein the controller acquires information and issues speech messages, audible effects through the speaker, and para. 0016 further discloses an LED to indicate proper operation and excess current; para. 0023 also discloses a visual indicator, and where para.’s 0004 and 0029 constitutes verification of safe and proper interconnection by further disclosing the circuit errors may be prevented by placing a safety device that protects and warn the user eliminating shorted power sources and limit the current levels to a safe value and claim 10 asserts the warning is removed when current is restored to a safe level, and/or where para. 0025 discloses a light emitting diode may provide visual indication that operation of the system is normal when the power source 824 is turned on).
Regarding Claim 170; Seymour discloses the modular interconnectable structure of claim 169, wherein the internal volume encloses an electrical storage component that is connected to the electrically conductive components (as disclosed by Seymour at claims 1-2, wherein the enclosure contains electronic conductive elements including a capacitor which electrically couples to the conductive components a constituted via electrical current paths 809, and/or 816).
Regarding Claim 171; Seymour discloses the modular interconnectable structure of claim 169, wherein more of the modular interconnectable housing structure forms part of a built structure (whereas 800 defines a built structure, whereas atleast 801-808, 810-817, and 824 forms part of the built structure).
Regarding Claim 174; Seymour discloses the modular interconnectable structure of claim 169, wherein the modular interconnectable structures are interconnectable electrically (as constituted by claim 1, whereas 800 atleast includes blocks interconnected 810-811 as electrically connected).
Regarding Claim 187; Seymour discloses the structure of claim 169, further comprising clasps, wherein the clasps are electrically conductive so as to function both as a clasp and as an electrical conductor thereby to maintain the modular interconnectable structures mechanically connected when the clasp is in a clasping position, and to conduct electrical signals between the modular interconnectable structures (as already constituted by the conductive clips-820 which may further couple as male and female connectors—as further set forth by para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 190; Seymour discloses the modular interconnectable structure of claim 169, wherein the exterior of the enclosure of each module includes safety verification fail safes, providing verification to ensure plug connectors of the conductive components are correctly connected (as already constituted by the conductive clips-820 which may further couple as male and female connectors—as further set forth by para. 0024).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 175 is 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.
Regarding Claim 175; the modular interconnectable structure of claim 169, wherein the modular interconnectable structure has timers, rails, inverters, rectifiers, switches, bus bars and outlets, and the modular interconnectable structures, timers, rails, inverters, rectifiers
PNG
media_image2.png
5
5
media_image2.png
Greyscale
switches, bus bars and outlets are stackable.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 169-171, 174-175, 187, 189 and 190, have been considered but are moot; whereas new rejection(s) are herein modified to read on amended claim construction(s).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080166926 A1
Seymour; Arthur et al.
Fig. 6
US 20180221782 A1
ALMOG; Boaz et al.
Fig.’s 1-10
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights