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
The Applicant’s Amendment filed on 12/16/2025 in which claims 1, 7-9 and 11 have been amended, claim 10 has been canceled, claims 12-13 have been added and entered of record.
The Abstract has been amended herein to correct the typographical error. Based on the amended Abstract, the objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are presented for examination.
Response to Argument
Applicant argues regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to the ground reference (Fig. 1, 7) that directly connected to the phase line Ph to provide as a floating reference based on design choice, the arguments have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/16/2025 with respect to the amended claim 1 has been considered but are not persuasive because the arguments are based substantially on the newly added limitations by the applicant to the independent claims. Please see the new ground of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al., US Patent 11,431,169; hereinafter “Matsuyama”; US Patent Publication 20230187933 is used for mapping in view of Morita et al., US Patent 5305174; hereinafter “Morita”.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuyama discloses a monitoring method (Figs. 1-5), using an electricity meter (Fig. 1, active meter) arranged to measure an electricity [0018] consumption of an installation (Fig. 1, consumer) [0018] and comprising a current limiter (Fig. 1, active meter) arranged to selectively limit a current supplied to the installation ([0018] “The one or more active meters can limit, or disconnect energy flow to a consumer load”), the monitoring method comprising the steps, repeated each current day (Fig. 3A) [0051] [0052], for each current period of a predetermined set of successive periods defined in the current day [0051] [0052], of:
verifying a first predetermined condition associated with said current period [0052] (Column 4 line 41 to Column 5 line 17; first over current);
if the first predetermined condition is verified, activating the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation until the end of said current period [0051] -[0055] [0069] (Column 4 lines 45-47; when breaker 1 trip, current is force to flow though the current limiting impedance 4 thus activate the current limiter),
the electricity meter in addition comprising a cutoff member [0051] arranged to selectively cut off the current supplied to the installation [0051], the monitoring method further comprising the steps, for each current period, of:
verifying a second predetermined condition associated with said current period [0051];
if the second predetermined condition is verified, operating the cutoff member so as to cut off the current supplied to the installation until the end of said current period [0051] -[0055],
the monitoring method being used, each current day [0052], to limit the electricity consumption of the installation based on predetermined conditions associated with the successive periods of the current day [0051] -[0055].
Matsuyama discloses the predetermined condition that a consumer load exceeds its energy allocation for the current period, the meter limit or disconnect energy flow to the consumer load. Matsuyama is silent about limiting or disconnecting circuit when the load is about to exceed an instantaneous power limit. Morita discloses a system monitor an instantaneous power (Column 4 line 41 to Column 5 line 17; first over current), when the instantaneous power about to exceed an instantaneous power limit, limits or disconnects the load (Column 4 lines 45-47; when breaker 1 trip, current is forced to flow though the current limiting impedance 4 thus activate the current limiter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Matsuyama to incorporate the teachings of Morita and monitor an instantaneous power, when the instantaneous power about to exceed an instantaneous power limit, limits or disconnects the load to have: verifying a first predetermined condition associated with said current period;
if the first predetermined condition is verified, activating the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation until the end of said current period,
the electricity meter in addition comprising a cutoff member arranged to selectively cut off the current supplied to the installation, the monitoring method further comprising the steps, for each current period, of:
verifying a second predetermined condition associated with said current period;
if the second predetermined condition is verified, operating the cutoff member so as to cut off the current supplied to the installation until the end of said current period. Doing so would provide overcurrent protection to prevent fire hazard since it is well-known in the art to protect overcurrent condition in power distribution line.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the monitoring method according to claim 1 above, Morita also discloses the first predetermined condition is that a cumulated electricity consumption of the installation over said current period is greater than a first predetermined threshold (Fig. 4, load current in A which is a unit of electric current that measures the rate at which coulomb of charge flow in 1s or 1hr).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the monitoring method according to claim 2 above, Matsuyama also discloses the second predetermined condition is that a cumulated electricity consumption of the installation over said current period is greater than a second predetermined threshold, itself greater than the first predetermined threshold [0051] -[0055].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the monitoring method according to claim 2 above, Matsuyama also discloses the first predetermined threshold and/or the second predetermined threshold depend on said current period and/or on said current day and/or on a period of the year to which said current day belongs [0051] -[0055].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the monitoring method according to claim 1 above, Morita also discloses the cutoff member comprising a switch (switch 2) for each phase of a distribution network (Fig. 1) to which the installation is connected (switch 2 to completely cutoff current to the load), the current limiter comprising, for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the activation of the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation comprising the steps of closing the relay then of opening the switch.
the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the claimed invention except that for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the activation of the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation comprising the steps of closing the relay then of opening the switch, Morita shows that when circuit breaker 1 in a closed state, in which the current limiter has higher impedance, therefore, the electric current will flow through the switch. When the switch is in an open state, the current flows to the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the load. The circuit discloses by Morita provide the same expected result without a parallel switch that connect in series with the current limiter, thus, an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two circuits would provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter, the circuits were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the switch series with the circuit breaker that in parallel with the current limiter for the switch in series with the current limiter which in parallel with the circuit breaker since they provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the electricity meter arranged to measure the electricity consumption of the installation, the electricity meter comprising the current limiter [0051] arranged to selectively limit the current supplied to the installation ([0051] limit energy flow) and the cutoff member ([0051] disconnect energy flow) arranged to selectively cut off the current supplied to the installation ([0051] disconnect energy flow), the electricity meter further comprising a processing unit (Fig. 1, Energy forecasting and allocation system EFAS) arranged to implement the monitoring method according to claim 1 above [0018].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the electricity meter according to claim 8 above, Morita also discloses the cutoff member comprising a switch (switch 2) for each phase (Fig. 1 is a phase) of a distribution network (Fig. 1) to which the installation is connected (current to load), the current limiter comprising, for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the processing unit being arranged, to activate the current limiter, to close the relay, then to open the switch.
Morita discloses the claimed invention except that for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the activation of the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation comprising the steps of closing the relay then of opening the switch, Morita shows that when circuit breaker 1 in a closed state, in which the current limiter has higher impedance, therefore, the electric current will flow through the switch. When the switch is in an open state, the current flows to the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the load. The circuit discloses by Morita provide the same expected result without a parallel switch that connect in series with the current limiter, thus, an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two circuits would provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter, the circuits were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the switch series with the circuit breaker that in parallel with the current limiter for the switch in series with the current limiter which in parallel with the circuit breaker since they provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuyama discloses a non-transitory recording medium [0018] which can be read by a computer, on which a computer program is recorded [0018], wherein the computer program comprises instructions which lead a processing unit [0018] of the electricity meter arranged to measure electricity consumption of the installation [0018], the electricity meter comprising the current limiter [0051] arranged to selectively limit the current supplied to the installation [0051], the electricity meter further comprising a processing unit arranged to implement the monitoring method according to claim 1 [0018] by the combination of Matsuyama and Morita.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the monitoring method according to claim 1 above, Morita also discloses the cutoff member comprising a switch (Fig. 1, switch 2) for each phase (Fig. 1 is a phase) of a distribution network to which the installation is connected (Fig. 1 feeder 115 show load current I flowing to a load), the current limiter comprising, for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay (Column 2, lines 60-61) and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the activation of the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation comprising the steps of closing the relays simultaneously then of opening the switches simultaneously.
Matsuyama and Morita discloses the claimed invention except that for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the activation of the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation comprising the steps of closing the relay(s) simultaneously then of opening the switch(es) simultaneously, Morita shows that when circuit breaker 1 in a closed state, in which the current limiter has higher impedance, therefore, the electric current will flow through the switch. When the switch is in an open state, the current flows to the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the load. The circuit discloses by Morita provide the same expected result without a parallel switch that connect in series with the current limiter, thus, an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two circuits would provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter, the circuits were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the switch series with the circuit breaker that in parallel with the current limiter for the switch in series with the current limiter which in parallel with the circuit breaker since they provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the electricity meter according to claim 8 above, Morita also discloses the cutoff member comprising a switch (Fig. 1, switch 2) for each phase (Fig. 1 is a phase) of a distribution network (Fig. 1) to which the installation is connected (current I to load), the current limiter comprising, for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the processing unit being arranged, to activate the current limiter, to close the relays simultaneously, then to open the switches simultaneously.
Matsuyama and Morita discloses the claimed invention except that for each switch of the cutoff member, a relay and a resistive component mounted in parallel of the switch, the activation of the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the installation comprising the steps of closing the relay(s) simultaneously then of opening the switch(es) simultaneously, Morita shows that when circuit breaker 1 in a closed state, in which the current limiter has higher impedance, therefore, the electric current will flow through the switch. When the switch is in an open state, the current flows to the current limiter to limit the current supplied to the load. The circuit discloses by Morita provide the same expected result without a parallel switch that connect in series with the current limiter, thus, an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two circuits would provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter, the circuits were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the switch series with the circuit breaker that in parallel with the current limiter for the switch in series with the current limiter which in parallel with the circuit breaker since they provide the same expected result by allowing current flowing through the current limiter.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama and Morita in view of Sharood et al., US Patent Publication 20010048030; hereinafter “Sharood”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matsuyama and Morita discloses the monitoring method according to claim 1 above, Morita also discloses said current period is associated with a first piece of information, according to which the current supplied to the installation must be limited for the whole of said current period (Column 4 lines 45-47; when breaker 1 trip, current is forced to flow though the current limiting impedance 4 thus activate the current limiter. The combination of Matsuyama and Morita does not disclose the verification of the first predetermined condition consists of verifying, in a predefined table. Sharood discloses using data stored in a memory format as a table for data comparison [0088]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified combination of Matsuyama and Morita to incorporate the teachings of Sharood and use table data structure in memory to have: the verification of the first predetermined condition consists of verifying, in a predefined table, that said current period is associated with a first piece of information, according to which the current supplied to the installation must be limited for the whole of said current period. Doing so would allow high efficiency in data comparison.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matsuyama, Morita and Sharood discloses the monitoring method according to claim 5 above, Matsuyama and Sharood also discloses the verification of the second predetermined condition consists of verifying, in the predefined table (Sharood) [0088], that said current period is associated with a second piece of information, according to which the current supplied to the installation must be cut off for the whole of said current period (Matsuyama) [0051] -[0055] [0069].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 THAI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0668. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 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, Rexford Barney can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/THAI H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836