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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: June 04, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 13-23 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13-18 and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, 4 and 12 have been cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 8, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The amendment to independent claims 1, 11 and 17 has introduced new 112(a) and 112(b) issues. In particular, the terms “likely” and “probability” with their associated limitations raise the new issues, which are addressed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 9-13, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-22 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an indication that the first electrical meter has likely been bypassed” in lines 16-17. In view of the indefiniteness of the term “likely” (see 112(b) rejection below), the limitations as recited does not enable one skilled in the art to perform the limitation. How does one skilled in the art provide an indication when a meter has likely been bypassed? There is no defined definition for the term “likely”, thus when does an indication occur? Does the indication occur when the meter is 50%, or 60%, or 70%, etc., likely to bypass the meter? Thus, one skilled in the art does not know when the indication for the meter has likely been bypassed should occur.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, as they contain similar claim language as claim 1 (see claim 11, page 4 line 16 to page 5 line 1; and see claim 17, page 6 lines 19-20).
Claims 3, 5-10, 21 and 23 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 11.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 17.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 13-23 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 1 recite the limitations “a probability that the first electrical meter has been bypassed” in line 11; “in response to the probability meeting” in line 15; and “an indication that the first electrical meter has likely been bypassed” in lines 16-17. The limitations “probability” and “likely” are indefinite, because the limitation does not indicate any metes and bounds for what is considered for the meter to be bypassed or not and a review of the specification shows that there is no definition for the limitation “probability” and “likely” found.
Claims 7-8, 10, 21 and 23 are dependent claims of claim 1, which have been found to contain the limitation “probability” and/or “likely” as well and are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
Claims 3, 5-10, 21 and 23 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 11 recite the limitations “a probability that the first electrical meter has been bypassed” on page 4, lines 13-14; “in response to the probability meeting a threshold criterion” on page 4, line 15; and “an indication that the first electrical meter has likely been bypassed” on page 4 line 16 to page 5 line 1. The limitations “probability” and “likely” are indefinite, because the limitation does not indicate any metes and bounds for what is considered for the meter to be bypassed or not and a review of the specification shows that there is no definition for the limitation “probability” and “likely” found.
Claims 13-16, dependent claims of claim 11, have been found to contain the limitation “probability” as well and are rejected for similar reasons as claim 11 above.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 11.
Claim 17 recite the limitations “determining a probability that the first electrical meter has been bypassed” on page 6 lines 15-16; “in response to the probability meeting a threshold criterion” on page 6 line 18; and “an indication that the first electrical meter has likely been bypassed” on page 6 lines 19-20. The limitations “probability” and “likely” are indefinite, because the limitation does not indicate any metes and bounds for what is considered for the meter to be bypassed or not and a review of the specification shows that there is no definition for the limitation “probability” and “likely” found.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choueiter et al. discloses “Electrical meter for determining device state changes using smart plugs” (see US2022/0044161)
Bubb et al. discloses “Advanced meter security system” (see US2009/0167557)
Zola et al. discloses “Device and process for detecting electrical meter motion” (see US2020/0191842)
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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights