CTFR 18/466,268 CTFR 96262 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Arguments/Amendments Argument and amendments filed on 03/03/2026 are considered. Applicant amended claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 15-17, 19 and 20. Claims 3, 13 are cancelled. Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112: Applicant clarified the rejected claim’s limitations. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. A new unclear limitation is noted in this present examination. It is addressed below in the respective section. Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 101: Applicant arguments related to the amended limitations are not persuasive regarding the 101 rejection. Under step 1. The invention is a computer implemented method, system, apparatus for determining an electrical grid power source using power line signal. Under step 2A (prong one). The claim limitations still recite mental or mathematical steps. Under step 2A (prong two): The recited abstract ideas do not integrate into practical application. Step 2B: the recited limitations of the claim invention are well known and routine based on the prior arts, and do not bring improvement in the technology or the computer functioning. See prior art rejections. Also due to 112(b) issue, the claim as a whole is not patent eligible. For detail explanation, please see the 101-rejection section below. Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103: further search and consideration found prior arts teaching the new limitations in the independent claims. The claims are accordingly rejected below in their respective section. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1, 2, 4-12, 14-21 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. Independent claims 1, 11, 20 and 21 recite “filtering power feeds, from the PSU designated as the signal generator, into one or more of the signal receivers, the filtering separating the unique signal from incident line noise and communicates the unique signal with the host device”. It is unclear whether the filtering processing is done at the power feeds or at the signal receivers. It is also unclear whether the generator or the receiver communicates the filtered unique signal with the host device. The claim also recites “…filtering separating the unique signal…” it is unclear whether filtering and separating are two distinct procedures, or the applicant mean either filtering or separating the unique signal in the claim limitation. Therefore, the independent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 (b). The respective dependent claims (2, 4-10), (12, 14-19) are also rejected under 112 (b) due to dependency on their independent claims 1 and 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1,2, 4-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, claim 1 recites: A computer implemented method for determining an electrical grid power source using a power line signal, comprising: establishing electronic communication using a power line between a host device and power supply units (PSUs) on an electrical power grid; using the host device , to designate a PSU as a signal generator, and to designate remaining PSU as a signal receiver; generating a command by the host device, to the PSU as the signal generator to inject a unique signal onto the power line used by the PSUs, the unique signal being distinguishable from other signals on the power line, and wherein the unique signal is unique in relation to any other signal present on the power line, and the unique signal includes a unique frequency and magnitude; filtering power feeds, from the PSU designated as the signal generator, into one or more of the signal receivers, the filtering separating the unique signal from incident line noise and communicates the unique signal with the host device; commanding by the host device, detection of the unique signal at the signal receivers on the power line; responding, by one of the signal receivers, to the host device, in response to detecting the unique signal at the signal receiver; and reporting to an electronic communication device, using the host device, the unique signal being detected by the signal receiver. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above. Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (process). Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. For example, a step of “using the host device , to designate a PSU as a signal generator, and to designate remaining PSU as a signal receiver (is considered to be a mental step); generating a command by the host device, to the PSU as the signal generator to inject a unique signal onto the power line used by the PSUs, the unique signal being distinguishable from other signals on the power line, and wherein the unique signal is unique in relation to any other signal present on the power line, and the unique signal includes a unique frequency and magnitude (is considered to be a mental step); filtering power feeds, from the PSU designated as the signal generator, into one or more of the signal receivers, the filtering separating the unique signal from incident line noise and communicates the unique signal with the host device (is considered to be a mathematical step); commanding by the host device, detection of the unique signal at the signal receivers on the power line (is considered to be a mental step); responding, by one of the signal receivers, to the host device, in response to detecting the unique signal at the signal receiver (is considered to be a mental step) ; and reporting to an electronic communication device, using the host device, the unique signal being detected by the signal receiver (is considered to be a mental step); These mental steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The host device, receivers is considered to be a generic computer. Therefore, the claims that require the use of computer are also considered to be performed by human minds. See MPEP 2106. 04 (a) (2). Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 11, 20 and 21. Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. In claim 1 , the additional elements/steps are: host device, power supply units and electrical power grids. The above additional elements/steps are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A computer implemented method…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “establishing electronic communication using a power line…” are also recited in generality which seem to be for gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. In claim 11 , the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional element in the preamble of “A system for determining an electrical” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “a host device and power supply units ….” are also recited in generality which seem to be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. In claim 20, the additional elements/steps are same as claim 1. The above additional elements/steps are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “An apparatus for determining…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “a host device electrically communicating with an…” are also recited in generality which seem to be for gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. In claim 21 , the additional element is: computer readable storage medium, program instructions, host device, power supply units. The storage medium and the program recited are not qualified as particular machines; a generic computer equipment that is well understood and conventional and is significantly insufficient. The additional element in the preamble of “A system for determining an electrical grid…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it is only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “establishing electronic communication using a power line…” are also recited in generality which seem to be for gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible. With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-, 4-10, 12, 14-19 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, 11, 20 and 21 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen US 20170294778 A1 in view of Mese US 20140294103 A1 . Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches a computer implemented method for determining an electrical grid power source using a power line signal, comprising: establishing electronic communication using a power line between a host device and power supply units (PSUs) on an electrical power grid ([0052] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a system that manages power provided to a load in a data center. The system 100, which can be included in a power infrastructure, includes one or more power sources 102a, 102b, 102c, electrical substation 110, a data center 120, and a power monitoring system 116. Para [0056] Electrical substation 110 may provide power received from a power source over one or more power transmission lines 104 a, 104 b, 104 c to data center 120 over power transmission line 119 ); Examiner views an electronic communication is established between power monitoring system (i.e., host device) and power sources (i.e., power supply units) using power transmission line on an electrical power grid In Fig. 1. using the host device, to designate a PSU as a signal generator, (para [0065] In some embodiments, power monitoring system 116 manages which high-voltage power feed is selectively routed by switching device 112 based on monitoring a waveform of high-voltage power received over one or more of the high-voltage power transmission lines 104a, 104b, 104c. para [0066] For example, power monitoring system 116 may collect voltage data associated with high-voltage power received over power transmission line 104a that represents the variation of voltage in the power transmission line 104a over time as a waveform) and to designate each remaining PSU as a signal receiver (para [0059] Switching device 112 can isolate one or more power feeds from components downstream of the switching device 112 and allow only power from one or more selected power sources to be passed to transformer 114 over power transmission line 118. para [0067] In some embodiments, power monitoring system 116 directs switching from a first high-voltage power feed to a second high-voltage power feed upon determining that the first high-voltage power feed may potentially be interrupted. By directing switching between power feeds before the potential power interruption occurs, power monitoring system 116 enables a steady, uninterrupted supply of high-voltage power to transformer 114 and thus a steady, uninterrupted supply of power to data center load 126, thereby preventing power interruptions at the data center load 126) ; From above paragraphs and Fig. 1 examiner views the monitoring system 116 (i.e., host device) designates the power source 102a as the signal generator which generates voltage signals and rest of the power sources 102b and 102c as the signal receiver that receive signal for switching off the power sources. generating a command by, the host device to the PSU as the signal generator to inject a unique signal onto the power line used by the PSUs, the unique signal being distinguishable from other signals on the power line, and wherein the unique signal is unique in relation to any other signal present on the power line, and the unique signal includes a unique frequency and magnitude (para [0017] FIG. 10 illustrates identifying a waveform pattern in a power waveform, according to one embodiment. [0047] As used herein, “waveform” means a signal having one or more periodic characteristics. A waveform may be, for example, a sine wave having a particular frequency and amplitude. Para [0059] Switching device 112 can isolate one or more power feeds from components downstream of the switching device 112 and allow only power from one or more selected power sources to be passed to transformer 114 over power transmission line 118. [0067] The power monitoring system 116 may direct components in system 100 to switch the source of power to data center load 126 from a first high-voltage power source to a second high-voltage power source); Examiner views the power monitoring system (i.e., host device) direct or command the power supply units via switch to generate unique or particular power waveforms that is distinguishable on the power lines. The waveform has a particular frequency and amplitude. commanding by the host device, detection of the unique signal at each of the signal receivers on the power line (0059] In some embodiments, power received at electrical substation 110 over one or more power transmission lines 104a, 104b, 104c can be selectively routed to be provided to the data center 120 by one or more switching devices 112. Switching device 112 can isolate one or more power feeds from components downstream of the switching device 112 and allow only power from one or more selected power sources to be passed to transformer 114 over power transmission line 118. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, switching device 112 may switch between selectively routing power received over one of power transmission lines 104a, 104b, and 104c to transformer 114 to be stepped down to a low voltage and transmitted to data center 120 over power transmission line 119.); Examiner views detecting the unique signal (i.e., switching signal) that switches off or on the particular power sources (i.e., at each receiver) by detecting a switching signal on the power transmission line 104a, 104b, and 104c. responding, by one of the signal receivers, to the host device, in response to detecting the unique signal at the signal receiver (para [0040] For example, an electrical substation that receives high-voltage power from two separate utility power sources may include a transformer that steps down the voltages to a medium voltage, switchgear to isolate power received from one or both of the power sources from downstream equipment, and sensor equipment that generate data regarding power received from one or both of the power sources. para [0094] For example, power monitoring system 310 may use lines 332 to receive data associated with the power feeds from power sources 302a, 302b, and 302c from sensor devices 312a, 312b, 312c, respectively. [0164] At 806 , the electrical substation switches to the second power source. The switching may be in response, at least in part, to receipt of the command from the power monitoring system to switch to the second power source); and From above passages examiner views the sensor devices 312a-312b of each power source provide power information of which power source is switched on or ff or isolated (i.e., responding, by one of the receivers) to the monitoring system (i.e., host device) using communication lines 332. ; and reporting to an electronic communication device, using the host device, the unique signal being detected by the signal receiver ([0022] According to one embodiment, a system includes a computing device including a waveform analysis module and a control module. The waveform analysis module identifies a waveform pattern of a first high-voltage power feed received at an electrical substation… Upon identification of the waveform pattern, the control module directs a part of the electrical substation to switch from transforming the first high-voltage power feed to transforming a second high-voltage power feed. para [0133] In some embodiments, power monitoring system 600 includes one or more of a waveform analysis module 602, a control module 604, a data store 608, and a waveform pattern recognition module 610. [0207] Network interface 1240 may be configured to allow data to be exchanged between computer system 1200 and other devices 1260 attached to a network or networks 1250 , such as other computer systems or devices as illustrated in FIGS. 1 through 12, for example.). From above paragraphs examiner views the unique waveform pattern recognition module and analysis module in the monitoring device or computer (i.e., host device) determine whether an intended power source (i.e., receiver) connected or received a switch on or off signal. Upon detection the signal being detected by the receivers the computer reports or communicates to other computers (i.e., an electronic communication device) using a communication network 1200 Nguyen does not clearly teach filtering power feeds, from the PSU designated as the signal generator, into one or more of the signal receivers, the filtering separating the unique signal from incident line noise and communicates the unique signal with the host device; Mese teaches filtering power feeds, from the PSU designated as the signal generator, into one or more of the signal receivers, the filtering separating the unique signal from incident line noise and communicates the unique signal with the host device (para [0052] The digital communication signal 315 may comprise information such as an instruction, a status, a parameter, or any other information that is to be relayed from a local circuit device 112a (FIG. 3) to a remote circuit device 112b (FIG. 3)….The information may be used to pass control information or parameters between the local circuit device 112a and the remote circuit device 112b). Para [0050] The receiver 309 (FIG. 3) that receives the communication signal 311 may use a bandpass filter 354… The bandpass filter 354 may reject other frequency components that may be present in the power supply signal 118.) [0061] At 617, the receiver 309 transmits the decoded digital communication signal 367 (FIG. 3) to the processing circuitry 303 (FIG. 3) of the local circuit device 112a. From above paragraphs examiner views the remote power supply 301 (i.e., signal generator) injects or feeds an incident line signal. The signal is received by the receiver 309. The receiver 309 filters the incident line signal from power line to separate or reject the unwanted noise signal and sends the filtered unique signal to the processor (i.e., host device) 303. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Mese into Nguyen for the purpose of communication to the receiver for filtering the noise signal so that an effective communication can be performed between the sender and the receiver regarding the power management. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nguyen and Mese teaches the method of claim 1, Nguyen teaches wherein the host device is a microcontroller (para [0019] FIG. 12 is a block diagram illustrating an example computer system that may be used in some embodiments.). Examiner views the power monitoring system (i.e., host) is a computer that has a microcontroller. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nguyen and Mese teaches the method of claim 1, Nguyen teaches wherein the unique signal is generated from a microcontroller as the host device and the microcontroller is part of a power supply unit on the electrical power grid (para [0019] FIG. 12 is a block diagram illustrating an example computer system that may be used in some embodiments. Para [0163] At 826 , the power monitoring system commands at least a part of the electrical substation to switch between the first power source and second power source, such that the electrical substation selectively routes power from the second power source to the data center and isolates at least the first power source from the data center). Examiner views the power monitoring system (i.e., host) as a computer that has a microcontroller. The computer (i.e., microcontroller) generates a unique signal (i.e., switching signal). Since computer controls the power supply to the load, examiner views the computer is also the part of a power supply unit on the electric power grid. Claims 11, 12 and14 are rejected as claims 1, 2 and 4 respectively having same claim limitations/elements. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected as claims 1 and 11 having same claim limitations/elements . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nguyen and Mese in view of Karunamuni et al (US 20180352071 A1) herein after “Karunamuni” . Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nguyen and Mese teaches the method of claim 1, the combination does not clearly teach wherein the communication is to a user and includes displaying on a display of the device a textual communication indicating the detection of the unique signal by the receiver. Karunamuni teaches wherein the communication is to a user and includes displaying on a display of the unique device a textual communication indicating the detection of the signal by the receiver. (para [0016] Referring to FIG. 4, read receipt 112 is presented on GUI 102 beneath digital image 108 , indicating that the image file had been read. Thus, read receipt 112 replaced delivery receipt 110 only for the most recent message in the conversation..) In above paragraph examiner views a textual communication to the graphical interface (i.e., for user) to indicate detection of a unique signal or event (i.e., incoming most recent message or signal) by or in the receiver device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Karunamuni into Nguyen for the purpose of communication to the user by displaying on a display of the device a textual communication indicating the detection of the signal by the receiver so that an effective communication can be performed between the sender and the receiver. Claim 10 is rejected as claim 5 as Karunamuni also teaches reporting (i.e., communicating to user by display) of receiver received the signal. Claims 15 is rejected as claims 5 having same claim limitations/elements . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 7, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nguyen and Mese in view of Lee et al (US 20160294296 A1) herein after “Lee” Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nguyen and Mese teaches the method of claim 1, the combination does not clearly teach further comprising: generating the unique signal using a signal generator communicating through an EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) filter. Lee teaches further comprising: generating the unique signal using a signal generator communicating through an EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) filter (para [0029] It can be readily observed from FIG. 1 that the power converter is comprised of two stages: an H-bridge power factor correction (PFC) circuit (with an EMI choke depicted at the left side thereof where AC power is input) on the left side of FIG. 1.) In above paragraph examiner views power source generates an AC power signal (i.e., signal) passing or communicating through an EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) filter (i.e., filtered or unique signal) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Lee into Nguyen for the purpose of passing an AC power signal generated by the generator or source to an electromagnetic interface filter so that the unwanted electrical noise can be blocked from entering the transmission line. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nguyen and Mese teaches the method of claim 1, the combination does not clearly teach further comprising: generating the unique signal using a regulation modulator communicating through a PFC (Power Factor Correction) circuit. Lee teaches further comprising: generating the unique signal using a regulation modulator communicating through a PFC (Power Factor Correction) circuit (para [0029] The power factor correction circuit includes an inductor, L.sub.PFC, two series connected switches, a full bridge diode rectifier circuit and a pulse width modulator.). Examiner views the corrected signal is viewed as the unique signal having unique frequency or amplitude. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Lee into Nguyen for the purpose of passing an AC power signal generated by the generator or source through pulse width modulation and the power factor circuit, so that efficiency and power quality of the power signal generation can be improved. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected as claims 6 and 7 respectively having same claim limitations/elements . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 9, 18 and19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nguyen and Mese in view of Alshinnawi et al. (US 20140164813 A1) herein after “Alshinnawi” Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nguyen and Mese teaches the method of claim 1, the combination does not clearly teach designating each of the plurality of devices, in succession during a time period, as the host device, and correspondingly each of the PSUs as the receivers. Alshinnawi teaches designating one of a plurality of devices, as the host device, and each of the plurality of devices electrically communicating with the PSUs on the electrical grid, respectively. (Abstract: For each PDU, the plurality of devices connected to the PDU are powered on in a sequence to prevent an inrush current from tripping the circuit breaker within the PDU, wherein the sequence powers on devices in order of ascending commonality of the model identification code [0016] The sequence may include powering on more than one of the devices at a time, so long as the inrush current to those devices will not trip the circuit breaker of the power distribution unit providing power to those devices. The sequence may also wait a predetermined period of time between powering on any one or more device and subsequently powering on any further device connected to the same power distribution unit. Waiting for a period of time allows the inrush current to settle down.) From above paragraphs examiner views the each of a plurality of devices (i.e., host device for receiving power) are electrically connected or communicated to their respective power distribution unit (PDU) or Power supply units (PSU) on the electrical grid or circuit. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Alshinnawi into Nguyen for the purpose of connecting each of plurality of devices to their respective power supply units so that an inrush current from tripping the circuit breaker within the power supply unit can be prevented. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nguyen, Mese and Alshinnawi teach the method of claim 1, Alshinnawi teaches designating each of the plurality of devices, in succession during a time period, as the host device, and correspondingly each of the PSUs as the signal receivers (para [0024] The power on command is distributed across a number of PDUs in a cluster at a controlled rate so that no one PDU has an inrush current that would trip its circuit breaker. [0016] The sequence may include powering on more than one of the devices at a time, so long as the inrush current to those devices will not trip the circuit breaker of the power distribution unit providing power to those devices. The sequence may also wait a predetermined period of time between powering on any one or more device and subsequently powering on any further device connected to the same power distribution unit. Waiting for a period of time allows the inrush current to settle down.) From above paragraphs examiner views the each of a plurality of devices (i.e, host device for receiving power) are electrical connected or communicated to their respective power distribution unit (PDU) or Power supply units (PSU) on the electrical grid or circuit in a succession or sequence during a time period. PDUs as receivers that receive a switching or power supply on/off signal in sequence. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Alshinnawi into Nguyen for the purpose of connecting each of plurality of devices to their respective power supply units to turn on or off the PSUs in sequence for during a time period. So that an inrush current from tripping the circuit breaker within the power supply unit can be prevented. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected as claims 8 and 9 respectively having same claim limitations/elements . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US 20130339768 A1) discusses power control and monitoring in multiple power supplies. Ono et al (US 20170192919 A1) discuss monitoring multiple power sources. 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 SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00. 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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. /SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 18 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 19 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 20 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 21 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 22 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/466,268 Page 23 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights