Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/351,866

MULTI-THROW OR MULTI-POLE SWITCHING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING MODULAR SWITCHING COMBINATIONS FOR ENABLING FLEXIBLE HOME ENERGY MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
GANNON, LEVI
Art Unit
2849
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Siemens Industry Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1225 granted / 1484 resolved
+14.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1513
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1484 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/25 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/18/25, is hereby withdrawn due to amendments made by the Applicant. However, the amendments to claims 1 and 7 raise the following new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1, lines 6-7 recite the limitation “modular transfer switches configured to add to the energy management system one or more energy sources”. However, as seen in figure 8, the transfer switches (module 1 and module 2) do not add/connect energy sources (utility, solar, battery) to the energy management system (110). The energy sources of figure 8 are added/connected to house loads with the transfer switches. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as--modular transfer switches configured to add to a load one or more energy sources--. Claim 1 recites the limitation "each switching module" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this term will be interpreted as—each modular transfer switch--. Claim 7 includes similar issues to those discussed above in claim 1. 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. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch, JR. (US 2016/0172900; “Welch”; reference of record) in view of Narla et al. (US 2018/0048159; “Narla”; reference of record). Regarding claim 1, Welch teaches a double-throw switching system (Figures 2, 3, and 9) in that double-throw switches add energy resources (10), the double-throw switching system comprising: an energy management system (110) configured to switch between a plurality of energy sources (10a-10g) to enable flexible configurations thereof, wherein the plurality of energy sources includes a utility (10a, 10c, 10g), a solar power energy (10f) and an energy storage component including a battery (10e); and a plurality of double-throw switches (120; details in figure 2) as modular transfer switches configured to add to a load (20) one or more energy sources (10) that are configured to be coordinated by the energy management system (110), wherein each modular transfer switch (120) is a double-throw switch such that by using multiple double-throw modular transfer switches (120), the double throw switching system (figures 2, 3, 9) realizes substantially the same functionalities as in a quadruple switching system (This limitation defines a quadruple switching system as one that is formed “by using multiple double-throw modular transfer switches”, which is taught in figure 9 of Welch.), wherein each double-throw switch (120) is made of n (n=2) throws, and wherein adding each double-throw switch (120) adds n-1 (2-1=1) energy resources including the utility (10a, 10c, 10g), the solar power energy source (10f) and the energy storage component including the battery (10e), wherein the switching system includes a charging switch (150) to select the battery (10e), and wherein the double-throw switches (120) are interlocked with one connection possible at a time so that only one energy resource (10a-10g) is connected to an output of each double-throw switch at the time (As seen in figure 2, switch modules 120 receive two inputs and connect one input to the output of the switch). Welch fails to teach wherein the switching system includes a net-metering switch to allow energy from the solar power energy source to be sold back to the utility. Narla teaches a switching system for multiple energy sources comprising a switch (126 in figure 1) that allows energy from a solar power energy source (102) to be sold back to a utility (106) to reduce energy costs to a customer (para. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide excess solar power from the PV array (10f) of Welch to the utility (10a, 10c, 10g) because such a modification would have provided the benefit of reducing energy costs to a customer utilizing the system of Welch. Regarding claim 6, Welch teaches wherein the energy management system (110) is configured to automatically coordinate between different switches of the plurality of double-throw switches (Para. [0034] teaches the operation of controller module 110). Regarding claims 7 and 12, the methods as recited in the claims are inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claims 1 and 6. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s comments directed to the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch in view of Narla, Applicant argues: Argument #1: “Welch’s switching modules do not add energy resources as claimed.” See bottom of page 4 of Applicant’s remarks. Response to Argument #1: As seen in figure 8 of the instant application, adding an energy resource is performed by connecting an energy resource to a load. This is the same functionality taught by Welch. As seen in figure 9 of Welch, switches 120 connect energy resources 10 to a load 20. Argument #2: “Welch does not achieve the claimed functional equivalence to a quadruple switching system.” See top of page 5 of Applicant’s remarks. Response to Argument #2: As discussed above, this limitation defines a quadruple switching system as one that is formed “by using multiple double-throw modular transfer switches”, which is taught in figure 9 of Welch. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM. 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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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. /LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849 January 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 24, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 08, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602574
NETWORK COMPRISING A PLURALITY OF OSCILLATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603610
OSCILLATOR WITH A MULTIPLE POLE RESONATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587135
OSCILLATION CIRCUIT AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573984
INTEGRATED OPTO-ELECTRONIC OSCILLATOR CHIP AS MICROWAVE AND MILLIMETER-WAVE FREQUENCY SYNTHESIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573933
ACTUATOR DEVICE FOR USE IN A POSITIONING SYSTEM AS WELL AS SUCH POSITIONING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+6.7%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1484 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month