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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the instant amendment are persuasive; however, a new ground of rejection is applied addressing wherein the one or more control signals are configured to cause a gate drive circuit of a modular control system of the respective module modular monitor system to generate one or more gate signals to cause operate one or more semiconductor switches to open, wherein the one or more semiconductor switches are configured to couple power source an inverter to a load device.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the inverter limitations of claims 1 and 16 have been considered but unpersuasive due to written description issues described below, infra 112 analysis. The specification does not describe the conversion of AC voltage into a controllable AC voltage but supports converting the AC voltage into a DC voltage.
The Examiner suggests clarifying the modular monitor systems over circuit breakers/smart panels of the primary reference while further detailing the inverter limitations of claim. Figure 1-28, 18, 25.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: modular monitoring systems in claims 1 and 16. The claim limitations of claims 1 and 16 modify the modular monitoring system with sufficient structure including at least one or more sensors and a modular control system that does not create a presumption that the modular system represents a generic placeholder. Accordingly, the one or more modular monitor systems do not represent generic placeholders.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-9 and 16-20 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 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.
Claims 1 and 16
“the inverter being part of a drive system configured to convert an alternative current (AC) voltage into a controllable AC voltage.” Applicant’s published specification does not support the inverter converting the alternative current volage into a controllable AC voltage but supports converting the AC voltage into a DC voltage described below. Accordingly, claiming a function of an inverter not supported by the specification raises an issue of new matter.
0025 e.g. “In general, the power converter 12 may receive three-phase alternating current (AC) voltage from the voltage source 20 and convert the AC voltage into a direct current (DC) voltage 22 suitable for powering loads (e.g., one or more inverters 18). In certain embodiments, the one or more inverters 18 then convert the DC voltage 22 to an AC voltage to be supplied to one or more devices connected to the one or more inverters 18, such as one or more motors 24. The one or more inverters 18 may then, in turn, control the speed, torque, or other suitable operations of the one or more motors 24 by controlling the AC voltage provided to the motors 24
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable over Kincade et al. (USPN 11372033) in view over YUN (PG/PUB 20240388080) in view over Yamabe (PG/PUB 20210336463).
Claim 10.
A method, comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, sensor data comprising one or more electrical characteristics associated with a respective modular monitor system of a plurality of modular monitor systems, supra claim 1
and a central monitor system, wherein the central monitor system is coupled to the plurality of modular monitor systems (Figure 1-110, Col 7 lines 8-10 , Col 8 lines 14-67 e.g. see central controller for remotely monitoring and controlling smart panel responsive to obtained measurements based in part on predetermined actions)
presenting, via the one or more processors, the sensor data via a display device; supra claim 1
generating, via the one or more processors, one or more control signals based on the sensor data; and
transmitting, via the one or more processors, the one or more control signals to the plurality of modular monitor systems, wherein the one or more control signals are configured to cause a modular control system of the respective module monitor system to operate one or more switches configured to couple a power source to a load device, supra claim 1
however, Kincade does not expressly teach the gate drive circuit to drive a semiconductor switch to open of a modular control system described below. Yun teaches gate drive circuit to drive a semiconductor switch to open of a modular control system described below
wherein the one or more control signals are configured to cause a gate drive circuit of a modular control system of the respective module modular monitor system to generate one or more gate signals to cause operate one or more semiconductor switches to open, wherein the one or more semiconductor switches are configured to couple power source an inverter to a load device (Yun, 0008-0014, 0023 e.g. see remotely controlling semiconductor switch via gate circuity for opening/disabling power to load, ABSTRACT, figure 1 -> 190, 170, 100, system A -> system B via elements 111/112, see also Kincade for employing a remotely controlled circuit breaker/modular control systems for enabling and disabling loads.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Yun, namely remotely controlling a semiconductor switch via a gate circuit, to the teachings of Kincade, namely remotely controlling a circuit breaker/modular control system to control power to a load, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods via adapting the central control to include the remote control function of Yun while adapting the circuit breaker of Kincade with the control circuitry of Yun. Yun is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of load control.
The combination does not expressly teach the inverter limitation described below. Yamabe teaches the inverter limitation described below
wherein the one or more semiconductor switches are configured to couple power source an inverter to a load device (Yamabe 0001, 0006, 0033-34, figure 1-12, 11, 8, 15, 16a, and see Kincade, as modified by Yun, for employing a switch between a load and a power source)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Yamabe, namely coupling an power source with inverter to a load via a switch, to the teachings of Kincade, as modified, namely coupling a power flow to a load via a switch, would achieve an expected and predictable result of selectively routing power flow from an inverter to a load via a switch. Yamabe is in the same field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to a problem of providing appropriate power levels to a load.
Claim 11.
The method of claim 10, comprising:
receiving, via the one or more processors, status information of the one or more semiconductor switches and protection circuitry, the protection circuitry configured to protect the one or more semiconductor switches; and
presenting, via the one or more processors, the status information via the display device, supra claim 2
Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the status information indicates an open condition or a closed condition associated with each of the one or more semiconductor switches, Col 5 lines 23-67, Col 8 line 13-67)
Claim 13.
The method of claim 11, comprising generating, via the one or more processors, the one or more control signals based on the sensor data and the status information (Col 8 lines 1-67, see also Col 2 lines 18-67)
Claim 14.
The method of claim 11, comprising controlling, via the one or more processors, one or more additional semiconductor switches based on the sensor data and the status information, the one or more additional semiconductor switches configured to couple power to the plurality of modular monitor systems (Figure 1, Col 1 lines 50-67, Col 6 lines 1-18, col 8 lines 13-67)
Claim 15.
Kincade teaches the method of claim 10 but does not expressly teach the second modular system limitations described below. Kincade teaches one or more electric panels described below wherein the central monitor system is configured to:
generate a first control signal and a second control signal based on the sensor data and the additional sensor data (Figure 1, Col 4 lines 16-67 e.g. see controlling switches based in part on motion , smoke, current/voltage values)
transmit the first control signal to a first modular monitor system of the one or more modular monitor systems (Figure 1, Col 4 lines 16-67)
transmit the second control signal to a second modular monitor system of the one or more modular monitor systems (Col 21 lines 1-15)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Kincade, namely remotely controlling and monitoring at least one smart panel, to the teachings of Kincade, namely providing one or more electric panels, would achieve an expected and predictable result of transmitting first and second control signals to respective first and second modular systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a distributed smart panel system to support distributed loads while accounting for expandability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 7 relevancy
20250079808 20240396324 20110115448
Semiconductor switching control
12519468 20240388080 12237711 20250007293 20240204562 20210336463
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 DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights