DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Dec. 04, 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed Dec. 04, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Claim 6 had been canceled.
2. Response to Applicant’s argument:
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argued that Ametsitsi et al. (2007/0198748) (“Ametsitsi”) in view of Kwok (2013/0015714), Schubert (2012/0212332) and Krieter (2011/0292869) doesn’t disclose the claim limitation “…the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing; …..the communication module configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to at least one external device….wherein the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network.”.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument does not fully reflect the Examiner’s statement in the previous office action. Applicant should consider all of the references as combined instead of individually.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because -
Ametsitsi discloses a communications module (at least 130, 134 and/or 142 in Fig.3) of a worksite power-receiving box (PLC outlet Hub 100) that is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to at least one external device (for example external device 172, via 174 in Fig.1 and 2; please refer to at least ¶ 60).
Note: Ametsitsi discloses the communications module of each of a worksite power-receiving box (PLC outlet Hub 100 in Fig.2) and a second worksite power-receiving box (another PLC outlet Hub 100 in Fig.2) uses IEEE 802.11 standard or other (152) for wireless communication (Fig.1 and 2; and ¶ 8-15, 47, 52 and 57).
Ametsitsi doesn’t explicitly disclose the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing; and the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network.
Kwok discloses a direct current (DC) output receptacle (810 in for example Figs.7 and 16) configured to receive a cable (Cable in Fig.16), the DC output receptacle (810 in Fig.7 and 16) recessed within the housing (housing of 800 in Fig.7).
Schubert discloses an example of a communications module (118 and 120 in Fig.1) of a worksite power-receiving box (102) configured to use either IEEE 802.15.4 or IEEE 802.11 wireless mesh networking standard for wireless communication (please refer to information related to Fig.1 and at least ¶ 24).
Krieter discloses a communications module (406 and/or 408 in Fig.4, which is part of power distribution box shown in Fig.2A and also uses as one of Repeaters 604s in Fig.6; according to Fig.2A, 2B, 3, 4 and 6 along with ¶ 36-38, 42 and 51-54) of a worksite power-receiving box (Fig.2A, which is one of 604s in Fig.6) configured to communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box (another one of 604s in Fig.6, which would be another one of power distribution box shown in Fig.2A), wherein the communications module uses IEEE 802.15.4 standard to form a wireless mesh network (Fig.6, please refer to at least ¶ 42 and 51-54).
Therefore, at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ametsitsi with the teaching of Kwok to provide a direct current (DC) output receptacle configured to receive a cable, the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing, with the teaching of Schubert to use a wireless mesh networking and with the teaching of Schubert and Krieter to provide the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network (Note: providing the first and second worksite power-receiving box of Ametsitsi with the function of mesh wireless network taught by Schubert and Krieter would provide the claim limitation “a communications module of a worksite power-receiving box that is configured to communicatively connect to each of the external device and a second worksite power-receiving box”). The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a wireless mesh networking method to monitor the power, control system network nodes and/or to expand wireless networking area by using the wireless mesh network as taught by Schubert and Krieter.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argued that Ametsitsi et al. (2007/0198748) (“Ametsitsi”) in view of Maroney (8,941,976), Schubert (2012/0212332) and Krieter (2011/0292869) doesn’t disclose the claim limitation “…the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing; …..the communication module configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to at least one external device….wherein the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network.”.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument does not fully reflect the Examiner’s statement in the previous office action. Applicant should consider all of the references as combined instead of individually.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because -
Ametsitsi discloses a communications module (at least 130, 134 and/or 142 in Fig.3) of a worksite power-receiving box (PLC outlet Hub 100) that is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to at least one external device (for example external device 172, via 174 in Fig.1 and 2; please refer to at least ¶ 60).
Note: Ametsitsi discloses the communications module of each of a worksite power-receiving box (PLC outlet Hub 100 in Fig.2) and a second worksite power-receiving box (another PLC outlet Hub 100 in Fig.2) uses IEEE 802.11 standard or other (152) for wireless communication (Fig.1 and 2; and ¶ 8-15, 47, 52 and 57).
Ametsitsi doesn’t explicitly disclose the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing; and the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network.
Maroney discloses a direct current (DC) output receptacle (206 in Fig.2; DC INPUT/OUTPUT in Figs.5-8; please refer to at least column 6, line 18-21) configured to receive a cable (110 in Figs.5-8), the DC output receptacle (206 in Fig.2; DC INPUT/OUTPUT in Figs.5-8) recessed within the housing (100 in Fig.2, also shown in Figs.5-8).
Schubert discloses an example of a communications module (118 and 120 in Fig.1) of a worksite power-receiving box (102) configured to use either IEEE 802.15.4 or IEEE 802.11 wireless mesh networking standard for wireless communication (please refer to information related to Fig.1 and at least ¶ 24).
Krieter discloses a communications module (406 and/or 408 in Fig.4, which is part of power distribution box shown in Fig.2A and also uses as one of Repeaters 604s in Fig.6; according to Fig.2A, 2B, 3, 4 and 6 along with ¶ 36-38, 42 and 51-54) of a worksite power-receiving box (Fig.2A, which is one of 604s in Fig.6) configured to communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box (another one of 604s in Fig.6, which would be another one of power distribution box shown in Fig.2A), wherein the communications module uses IEEE 802.15.4 standard to form a wireless mesh network (Fig.6, please refer to at least ¶ 42 and 51-54).
Therefore, at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ametsitsi with the teaching of Maroney to provide a direct current (DC) output receptacle configured to receive a cable, the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing, with the teaching of Schubert to use a wireless mesh networking and with the teaching of Schubert and Krieter to provide the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network (Note: providing the first and second worksite power-receiving box of Ametsitsi with the function of mesh wireless network taught by Schubert and Krieter would provide the claim limitation “a communications module of a worksite power-receiving box that is configured to communicatively connect to each of the external device and a second worksite power-receiving box”). The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a wireless mesh networking method to monitor the power, control system network nodes and/or to expand wireless networking area by using the wireless mesh network as taught by Schubert and Krieter.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,975. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 10-16 are anticipated in the claims 14-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,749,975.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametsitsi et al. (2007/0198748) (“Ametsitsi”) in view of Kwok (2013/0015714), Schubert (2012/0212332) and Krieter (2011/0292869).
Regarding claim 10, Ametsitsi discloses a worksite power-receiving box with network communication capabilities (one of PLC outlet hubs shown in Fig.1, 2 and 5; please refer to the whole reference for detailed), the worksite power-receiving box comprising: a housing (housing of the one of PLC output hubs shown in Fig.5); a power input (AC power input of the one of the PLC output hubs) operable to receive power from an external power source (112 in Figs.1 and 2); and a communications module (104 in Fig.1) at least partially located within the housing, the communications module including a network port (134), the communications module operable to connect to an external communication network (114 in Fig.1 and 2) through the network port (please refer to at least ¶ 60), the communications module configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to at least one external device (for example - external device 172 via 174 in Fig.1 and 2 (or) another one of the PLC Outlet hubs 100 and associated 168 via 174 in Fig.1 and 2; please refer to at least ¶ 60).
Note: Ametsitsi further discloses the communications module of each of the worksite power-receiving box and the second worksite power-receiving box uses IEEE 802.11 standard or other (152) for wireless communication (Fig.1 and 2; and ¶ 8-15, 47, 52 and 57).
Ametsitsi doesn’t disclose a direct current (DC) output receptacle configured to receive a cable, the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing; and the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network.
Kwok discloses a direct current (DC) output receptacle (810 in for example Figs.7 and 16) configured to receive a cable (Cable in Fig.16), the DC output receptacle (810 in Fig.7 and 16) recessed within the housing (housing of 800 in Fig.7).
Schubert discloses an example of a communications module (118 and 120 in Fig.1) of a worksite power-receiving box (102) configured to use a power line communication (132) and also either IEEE 802.15.4 or IEEE 802.11 wireless mesh networking standard for wireless communication (please refer to information related to Fig.1 and at least ¶ 24).
Krieter discloses a worksite power-receiving box (102 in Fig.1A or 2A, which is one of 604s in Fig.6) is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box (another one of 604s in Fig.6) to form a wireless mesh network; wherein IEEE 802.15.4 standard is used to form the wireless mesh network (Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ametsitsi with the teaching of Kwok to provide a direct current (DC) output receptacle configured to receive a cable, the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing, with the teaching of Schubert to use a wireless mesh networking and with the teaching of Schubert and Krieter to provide the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide DC output receptacle for DC powered devices as taught by Kwok and to use a wireless mesh networking method to monitor the power, control system network nodes and/or to expand wireless networking area by using the wireless mesh network as taught by Schubert and Krieter’s ¶ 54 and 56.
Regarding claim 11, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Kwok, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi discloses the external communication network (114 in Fig.1 and 2) is an Internet (185 in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 12, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Kwok, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claims 10 and 11 above.
Ametsitsi discloses the network port (134) is an Ethernet port.
Regarding claim 13, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Kwok, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi discloses a wireless communicative connection (174 in Fig.1 or 144 in Fig.3) between the worksite power-receiving box (PLC OUTLET HUB in Fig.1) and the external device (172) is a Wi-Fi data connection (please refer to at least ¶ 52 and 57).
Regarding claim 14, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Kwok, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi discloses the at least one external device (another one of the PLC Outlet hubs 100 and associated 168 via 174 in Fig.2) is a smart phone (combination of the another one of the PLC Outlet hubs 100 and associated 168 via 174 in Fig.2; please refer to at least ¶ 47).
8. Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametsitsi et al. (2007/0198748) (“Ametsitsi”) in view of Maroney (8,941,976), Schubert (2012/0212332) and Krieter (2011/0292869).
Regarding claim 10, Ametsitsi discloses a worksite power-receiving box with network communication capabilities (one of PLC outlet hubs shown in Fig.1, 2 and 5; please refer to the whole reference for detailed), the worksite power-receiving box comprising: a housing (housing of the one of PLC output hubs shown in Fig.5); a power input (AC power input of the one of the PLC output hubs) operable to receive power from an external power source (112 in Figs.1 and 2); and a communications module (104 in Fig.1) at least partially located within the housing, the communications module including a network port (134), the communications module operable to connect to an external communication network (114 in Fig.1 and 2) through the network port (please refer to at least ¶ 60), the communications module configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to at least one external device (for example - external device 172 via 174 in Fig.1 and 2 (or) another one of the PLC Outlet hubs 100 and associated 168 via 174 in Fig.1 and 2; please refer to at least ¶ 60).
Note: Ametsitsi further discloses the communications module of each of the worksite power-receiving box and the second worksite power-receiving box uses IEEE 802.11 standard or other (152) for wireless communication (Fig.1 and 2; and ¶ 8-15, 47, 52 and 57).
Ametsitsi doesn’t disclose a direct current (DC) output receptacle configured to receive a cable, the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing; and the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network.
Maroney discloses a direct current (DC) output receptacle (206 in Fig.2; DC INPUT/OUTPUT in Figs.5-8; please refer to at least column 6, line 18-21) configured to receive a cable (110 in Figs.5-8), the DC output receptacle (206 in Fig.2; DC INPUT/OUTPUT in Figs.5-8) recessed within the housing (100 in Fig.2, also shown in Figs.5-8)
Schubert discloses an example of a communications module (118 and 120 in Fig.1) of a worksite power-receiving box (102) configured to use a power line communication (132) and also either IEEE 802.15.4 or IEEE 802.11 wireless mesh networking standard for wireless communication (please refer to information related to Fig.1 and at least ¶ 24).
Krieter discloses a worksite power-receiving box (102 in Fig.1A or 2A, which is one of 604s in Fig.6) is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box (another one of 604s in Fig.6) to form a wireless mesh network; wherein IEEE 802.15.4 standard is used to form the wireless mesh network (Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ametsitsi with the teaching of Maroney to provide a direct current (DC) output receptacle configured to receive a cable, the DC output receptacle recessed within the housing, with the teaching of Schubert to use a wireless mesh networking and with the teaching of Schubert and Krieter to provide the worksite power-receiving box is configured to wirelessly communicatively connect to a second worksite power-receiving box to form a wireless mesh network. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide DC output receptacle for DC powered devices as taught by Maroney and to use a wireless mesh networking method to monitor the power, control system network nodes and/or to expand wireless networking area by using the wireless mesh network as taught by Schubert and Krieter’s ¶ 54 and 56.
Regarding claim 11, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi discloses the external communication network (114 in Fig.1 and 2) is an Internet (185 in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 12, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claims 10 and 11 above.
Ametsitsi discloses the network port (134) is an Ethernet port.
Regarding claim 13, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi discloses a wireless communicative connection (174 in Fig.1 or 144 in Fig.3) between the worksite power-receiving box (PLC OUTLET HUB in Fig.1) and the external device (172) is a Wi-Fi data connection (please refer to at least ¶ 52 and 57).
Regarding claim 14, Ametsitsi with the teaching of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi discloses the at least one external device (another one of the PLC Outlet hubs 100 and associated 168 via 174 in Fig.2) is a smart phone (combination of the another one of the PLC Outlet hubs 100 and associated 168 via 174 in Fig.2; please refer to at least ¶ 47).
9. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametsitsi et al. (2007/0198748) (“Ametsitsi”) in view of Maroney (8,941,976), Schubert (2012/0212332), Krieter (2011/0292869) and Hubbell Wiring (“Single Pole Device and Temporary Power”, cited by Applicant in the IDS submitted on Sept. 01, 2023) (hereinafter “Hubbell”).
Regarding claim 15, Ametsitsi in view of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claim 10 above.
Ametsitsi doesn’t disclose the DC output receptacle includes a twist-to-lock/unlock mechanism for at least partially securing the cable to the worksite power-receiving box.
Hubbell discloses an example of the DC output receptacle (output receptacle of the 50A or 60A Spider II Temporary Power Boxes shown on page 6 and 7, which is a DC output receptacle according to Specifications on page 4, which states Voltage Ratings is 250V DC Maximum) includes a twist-to-lock/unlock mechanism (“6-20 Amp straight blade or Twist-Lock watertight receptacles” as stated on page 6) for at least partially securing the cable to the worksite power-receiving box (page 6 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maroney Ametsitsi in view of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter with the teaching of Hubbell to provide the DC output receptacle includes a twist-to-lock/unlock mechanism for at least partially securing the cable to the worksite power-receiving box. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use watertight receptacles to protect electrical component in the worksite power-receiving box.
Regarding claim 16, Ametsitsi in view of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter is used to reject claims 10 and 15 above.
Ametsitsi doesn’t disclose the twist-to-lock/unlock mechanism prevents water from entering the DC output receptacle.
Hubbell discloses an example of the twist-to-lock/unlock mechanism (“6-20 Amp straight blade or Twist-Lock watertight receptacles” as stated on page 6) prevents water from entering the DC output receptacle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ametsitsi in view of Maroney, Schubert and Krieter with the teaching of Hubbell to provide the twist-to-lock/unlock mechanism prevents water from entering the DC output receptacle. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use watertight receptacles to protect electrical component in the worksite power-receiving box.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 17-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849