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. 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 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 22-29 have been considered but are moot because the se claims have been canceled. One of the specification objections is being maintained, because this has not been addressed, The Examiner provides an explanation with the specification objection as to why the objection is maintained. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0064], line 16, “FIG. 4C” should be “FIG. 1A.” The passage in para. [0064] states “[t] he embodiment of the mounting component 111 depicted in FIG. 4C is a threaded screw.” Fig. 4C does not show the mounting component 111 , whereas Fig. 1A does illustrate the mounting component 111. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35, lines 4 and 7, “ the at least one receptacle of the plurality of interface modules” should be “the at least one receptacle of the chosen interface module of the plurality of interface modules”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 45 requires “ as the cover plate is installed to the base box, the cover plate substantially contains arc flashes between the electrical connectors of the cover plate and the base box to within the modular power box.” The specification at para. [0051] states “[t]he present disclosure allows for the safe addition or modification of receptacles by shutting off the dedicated upstream circuit breaker without the need to shut down the entire RPP or busway” and para. [0053] states that “this process advantageously does not expose technicians to arc flash or shock hazard safety concerns when installing or removing the PIMs, as the upstream branch breaker will be turned off during the installation or removal.” In both the recited passages of the specification above, a n upstream circuit breaker of the modular power box 100 is shutoff prior to installing/removing a cover plate 101 or 114 onto base box 104. So how does the cover plate as being installed on the base box substantially contain arc flashes if there is no power being received by the modular power box at the time the cover is being installed or removed because the upstream circuit breaker shuts off power to the modular power box ? 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 30-38 , 42, and 43 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. Claim 30, lines 12, 14 and 15 ; and Claim 34, lines 11, 14, and 15 , “the modular power box” lacks antecedent basis; Claim 31, line 4 requires “receptacle s ” and Claim 30, line 23 requires “receptacle s .” Are these the same or different recep t acles being claimed? Claim 3 2 , line s 4 and 6 requires “ at least one receptacle” and Claim 30, line 23 requires “receptacle s .” Are these the same or different recep t acle ( s ) being claimed? Claim 3 3 , line 3 requires “ two receptacle s ” and Claim 30, line 23 requires “receptacle s .” Are these the same or different recep t acles being claimed? Claim 34, line 12 requires “at least one receptacle:” and lines 20 and 22 each require “receptacle.” Are these the same or different recep t acle ( s ) being claimed? Claim 42, line 2 requires “a single receptacle” and Claim 40, line 2 requires “at least one receptacle.” Are these the same or different recep t acle (s) being claimed? Claim 43, line 2 requires “two receptacles” and Claim 40, line 2 requires “at least one receptacle.” Are these the same or different recep t acle (s) being claimed? The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31, line 4 requires “does not comprise any receptacles” and Claim 30, line 23 requires “a different number of receptacles.” Claim 30 is understood as that the second interface module has to comprise a number of receptacles , with the second interface module having a different number of receptacles than the first interface module. Not e that the number of receptacles for the second interface module would have to be “zero” which means that the second interface module does not have at a receptacle . However, claim 30 requires the second interface module to include a number of receptacles . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter The claims 39-41, 44, 46, and 4 7 are allowable over the prior art of record for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a structure as in claim 39, comprising a base box comprising: an enclosure with a front mounting surface and an opening; and an electrical connector configured to receive power from a power source ; and a cover plate configured to connect with the base box, wherein the cover plate comprises: a mounting surface with upper and lower protrusions configured to interface with the front mounting surface of the base box; and an electrical connector configured to align with the electrical connector of the base box when the modular power box is assembled. The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of the respective claims are believed to render said independent claim 39 and claims -40, 41, 44, 46, and 4 7 dependent therefrom patentable over art of record. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2761 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. 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. RJH TIME \@ "M/d/yyyy" 12/18/2025 /ROBERT J HOFFBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835