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
Examiner acknowledges submission of the amendment and arguments filed on April 14, 2026. Claims 1-19, and 21 are currently pending in this application. Claims 11 and 14-18 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. The examiner withdraws the objections to the drawings. A new Office Action follows.
Examination Notice
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6, 8-9, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 2023/0120453 A1) in view of Gagnon (US 2015/0123654 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Rao teaches a power distribution equipment (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32), comprising:
a main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32) connected to a power distribution network (110 – Fig. 1);
a branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) connected to the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32) through an internal bus (3204, 3205 – Fig. 32) ([0102] lines 6-8) in the power distribution equipment (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32);
a first measurement sensor (3202 – Fig. 32) coupled with the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32) and configured to measure at least one of a total voltage or a total current ([0107] lines 6-9) (implicit) associated with the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32);
a second measurement sensor (152, 162 – Fig. 1; 3220, 3221 – Fig. 32) coupled with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) and configured to measure a branch current ([0107] lines 14-17) (implicit) associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32), and
a control module (118 – Fig. 1; 4812 – Fig. 48) configured to:
determine an abnormality (4908 – Fig. 49) associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) based on the branch current and at least one of the total voltage or the total current (4902 – Fig. 49) (Abstract, lines 1-13; [0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6); and
control a disconnection (4921 – Fig. 49) of the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) in response to the abnormality (Abstract, lines 1-13; [0328] lines 1-9).
Rao does not teach the first measurement sensor is configured to measure at least one of a total voltage or a total current associated with the main switch;
the second measurement sensor is configured to measure a branch current associated with the branch switch, wherein the first measurement sensor comprises a first sensor type with a higher measurement precision than a second sensor type of the second measurement sensor.
Gagnon teaches a first measurement sensor (104A-104B – Fig. 1) coupled with the main switch (102 – Fig. 1) and configured to measure at least one of a total voltage or a total current associated with the main switch (102 – Fig. 1) ([0034] lines 2-7);
a second measurement sensor (108A-108B – Fig. 1) coupled with the branch switch (106A-106F – Fig. 1) and configured to measure a branch current associated with the branch switch (106A-106F – Fig. 1) ([0034] lines 2-7), wherein the first measurement sensor (104A-104B – Fig. 1) comprises a first sensor type ([0004] lines 6-7; [0032] lines 6-11) with a higher measurement precision (see Fig. 1 “High Precision Sensor”) than a second sensor type (Abstract, lines 6-12) of the second measurement sensor (108A-108B – Fig. 1) (see Fig. 1 “Low Precision Sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power distribution equipment of Rao, to have the first measurement sensor comprises a first sensor type with a higher measurement precision than a second sensor type of the second measurement sensor, as taught by Gagnon, in order to balance cost, reliability, and accuracy of the power distribution equipment and improve the load management efficiency, and since doing so is within the ordinary capability of those skilled in the art because this configuration is well known in the art.
With regard to claim 2, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches wherein to determine the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6), the control module (4812 – Fig. 48) is configured to:
determine that there is a leakage fault or an arc fault (4908 – Fig. 49) based on the total current (4902 – Fig. 49); and
determine that the leakage fault or the arc fault is associated with the branch switch based on the branch current ([0328] lines 1-18).
With regard to claim 3, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches wherein to determine the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6), the control module (4812 – Fig. 48) is configured to:
determine that there is a short circuit fault associated with the branch switch based on the branch current ([0346] lines 1-11).
With regard to claim 4, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches to determine the abnormality, the control module (118 – Fig. 1; 4812 – Fig. 48) is configured to:
determine that there is an overvoltage or undervoltage fault associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) based on the total voltage and an operating voltage of an electrical device connected to the branch switch ([0174] lines 4-8).
With regard to claim 5, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches wherein the control module (118 – Fig. 1; 4812 – Fig. 48) is further configured to determine an additional abnormality (3270 – Fig. 32) ([0176] lines 1-3 “phase imbalance”) associated with the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32), and wherein the power distribution equipment (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32) further comprises a protection module (3203 – Fig. 32) associated with the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32), and configured to disconnect the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32) from the power distribution network in response to detecting the additional abnormality (4908, 4921 – Fig. 49).
With regard to claim 6, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 5, and Rao further teaches the protection module (3203 – Fig. 32) comprises at least one of a short circuit protection circuit, a leakage protection circuit, an overvoltage ([0179] lines 1-6, “excessive voltage associated with the monitored electrical system phase is detected”) and undervoltage protection circuit, an absorption circuit, an arc protection circuit, or an overload protection circuit.
With regard to claim 8, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches a communication module ([0084] lines 1-6; [0102] lines 25-29), configured to send information associated with the power distribution equipment to a remote client ([0086] lines 1-6; [0087] lines 1-6).
With regard to claim 9, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 8, and Rao further teaches the information comprises at least one of the total voltage, the total current, the branch current, a connection state of the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32), a disconnection state of the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32), a connection state of the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32), or a disconnection state of the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) ([0102] lines 25-39).
With regard to claim 14, Rao teaches a device (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32), comprising:
at least one processor (118 – Fig. 1; 4812 – Fig. 48) operable to cause the device (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32) to:
obtain, by a first measurement sensor (3202 – Fig. 32) associated with a main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32) of the device, at least one of a total voltage or a total current ([0107] lines 6-9) (implicit) associated with the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32), wherein the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32) is connected to a power distribution network (110 – Fig. 1);
obtain, by a second measurement sensor (152, 162 – Fig. 1; 3220, 3221 – Fig. 32) associated with a branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) of the device, a branch current (see Fig. 1 and/or Fig. 32) associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32), wherein the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) is connected to the main switch (112 – Fig. 1; 3201 – Fig. 32) through an internal bus (3204, 3205 – Fig. 32) ([0102] lines 6-8) in the device;
determine an abnormality (4908 – Fig. 49) associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) based on the branch current and at least one of the total voltage or the total current (Abstract, lines 1-13; [0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6); and
control a disconnection (4921 – Fig. 49) of the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) in response to the abnormality (Abstract, lines 1-13; [0328] lines 1-9).
Rao does not teach the first measurement sensor comprises a first sensor type with a higher measurement precision than a second sensor type of the second measurement sensor.
Gagnon teaches obtain, by the first measurement sensor (104A-104B – Fig. 1) associated with a main switch (102 – Fig. 1) of the device (100 – Fig. 1) ([0034] lines 2-7), at least one of a total voltage or a total current associated with the main switch (102 – Fig. 1) ([0034] lines 2-7); and the first measurement sensor (104A-104B – Fig. 1) comprises a first sensor type ([0004] lines 6-7; [0032] lines 6-11) with a higher measurement precision (see Fig. 1 “High Precision Sensor”) than a second sensor type (Abstract, lines 6-12) of the second measurement sensor (108A-108B – Fig. 1) (see Fig. 1 “Low Precision Sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Rao, to have the first measurement sensor comprises a first sensor type with a higher measurement precision than a second sensor type of the second measurement sensor, as taught by Gagnon, in order to balance cost, reliability, and accuracy of the power distribution equipment and improve the load management efficiency, and since doing so is within the ordinary capability of those skilled in the art because this configuration is well known in the art.
With regard to claim 15, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 14, and Rao further teaches to determine the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6), the at least one processor (4812 – Fig. 48) is further operable to cause the device to:
determine that there is a leakage fault or an arc fault (4908 – Fig. 49) based on the total current (4902 – Fig. 49); and
determine that the leakage fault or the arc fault is associated with the branch switch based on the branch current ([0328] lines 1-18).
With regard to claim 16, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 14, and Rao further teaches to determine the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6), the at least one processor (4812 – Fig. 48) is further operable to cause the device to:
determine that there is a short circuit fault associated with the branch switch based on the branch current ([0346] lines 1-11).
With regard to claim 17, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 14, and Rao further teaches to determine the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6), the at least one processor (118 – Fig. 1; 4812 – Fig. 48) is further operable to cause the device to:
determine that there is an overvoltage or undervoltage fault associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) based on the total voltage and an operating voltage of an electrical device connected to the branch switch ([0174] lines 4-8).
With regard to claim 18, Rao teaches a method performed by a device (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32), the method comprising: obtaining, by a first measurement sensor (3202 – Fig. 32) associated with a main switch (3201 – Fig. 32) of the device, at least one of a total voltage or a total current ([0107] lines 6-9) (implicit) associated with the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32), wherein the main switch is connected to a power distribution network (100 – Fig. 1; 3200 – Fig. 32);
obtaining, by a second measurement sensor (152, 162 – Fig. 1; 3220, 3221 – Fig. 32) associated with a branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) of the device, a branch current (see Fig. 1 and/or Fig. 32) associated with the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32), wherein the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) is connected to the main switch through an internal bus (3204, 3205 – Fig. 32) ([0102] lines 6-8) and;
determining an abnormality (4908 – Fig. 49) associated with the branch switch based on the branch current (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) and at least one of the total voltage or the total current (4902 – Fig. 49) (Abstract, lines 1-13; [0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6); and
controlling a disconnection (4921 – Fig. 49) of the branch switch (154 – Fig. 1; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) in response to the abnormality (Abstract, lines 1-13; [0328] lines 1-9).
Rao does not teach the first measurement sensor comprises a first sensor type with a higher measurement precision than a second sensor type of the second measurement sensor.
Gagnon teaches obtaining, at least one of a total voltage or a total current associated with the main switch (102 – Fig. 1) ([0034] lines 2-7); and the first measurement sensor (104A-104B – Fig. 1) comprises a first sensor type ([0004] lines 6-7; [0032] lines 6-11) with a higher measurement precision (see Fig. 1 “High Precision Sensor”) than a second sensor type (Abstract, lines 6-12) of the second measurement sensor (see Fig. 1 “Low Precision Sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method performed by a device of Rao, to have the first measurement sensor comprises a first sensor type with a higher measurement precision than a second sensor type of the second measurement sensor, as taught by Gagnon, in order to balance cost, reliability, and accuracy of the power distribution equipment and improve the load management efficiency, and since doing so is within the ordinary capability of those skilled in the art because this configuration is well known in the art.
With regard to claim 19, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 18, and Rao further teaches determining the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6) comprises:
determining that there is a leakage fault or an arc fault (4908 – Fig. 49) based on the total current (4902 – Fig. 49); and
determining that the leakage fault or the arc fault is associated with the branch switch based on the branch current ([0328] lines 1-18).
With regard to claim 21, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches to determine the abnormality ([0318] lines 1-15; [0319] lines 1-6), the control module (118 – Fig. 1; 4812 – Fig. 48) is configured to: detect a fault (4908 – Fig. 49) based on the total current (4902 – Fig. 49); and determine that the fault is associated with the branch switch based on the branch current ([0320] lines 1-12; [0323] lines 1-31).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 2023/0120453 A1) and Gagnon (US 2015/0123654 A1) in further view of Vaghasiya (US 2022/0328273 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 8, but do not teach the communication module is further configured to receive control information from the remote client, and wherein the control module is further configured to control a connection or disconnection of at least one of the main switch or the branch switch.
Vaghasiya teaches the communication module (120 – Fig. 2) is further configured to receive control information from the remote client (18 – Fig. 2), and wherein the control module (100 – Fig. 2) is further configured to control a connection or disconnection of at least one of the main switch (2, 4 – Fig. 2) or the branch switch (Abstract, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power distribution equipment of Rao and Gagnon, to have the communication module is further configured to receive control information from the remote client, and wherein the control module is further configured to control a connection or disconnection of at least one of the main switch or the branch switch, as taught by Vaghasiya, in order to improve operational efficiency, safety, and responsiveness to faults or maintenance needs
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 2023/0120453 A1) and Gagnon (US 2015/0123654 A1) in further view of “Code Changes Based on the 2020 National Electrical Code”.
With regard to claim 11, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches a master isolation switch connected between the power distribution network and the main switch.
Code Changes Based on the 2020 National Electrical Code teaches a master isolation switch (Emergency Disconnect MBE1224B100BTS; page 31) connected between the power distribution network (implicit) and the main switch (implicit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power distribution equipment of Rao and Gagnon, to have a master isolation switch connected between the power distribution network and the main switch, as taught by Code Changes Based on the 2020 National Electrical Code, in order to comply with National Electrical Code, section “230.85 Emergency Disconnects” and improve aid first responders by providing a disconnecting means to a dwelling that is readily accessible, outside of the structure, and easily functional without extensive electrical training.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 2023/0120453 A1) and Gagnon (US 2015/0123654 A1) in further view of Lichauer (US 2022/0278519 A1).
With regard to claim 12, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further teaches the power distribution network (3101 – Fig. 31) is an alternating current (AC) power grid ([0186] lines 4-5) or a direct current (DC) power grid, and wherein the branch switch are solid-state switches (3112, 3122 – Fig. 31; 3240, 3241 – Fig. 32) ([0186] lines 28-31).
Rao and Gagnon do not teach the main switch is a solid-state switch.
Lichauer teaches the main switch (10A – Fig. 2) is a solid-state switch ([0028] lines 3-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power distribution equipment of Rao and Gagnon, to have the main switch is a solid-state switch, as taught by Lichauer, in order to take advantage of the solid-state switch properties such as enhanced safety and speed, arc flash protection, zero contact wear, and smart capabilities, such as remote monitoring, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 7, in combination with other limitations of the claim, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein to control the disconnection of the branch switch, the control module is configured to: determine that the main switch has been disconnected by the protection module; control the branch switch to be disconnected; and control the main switch to be connected.”
With regard to claim 13, Rao and Gagnon teach all the limitations of claim 8, and Rao further teaches a protection module (3203 – Fig. 32) configured to disconnect the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32) in response to an additional abnormality (4908, 4921 – Fig. 49) in a circuit associated with the main switch (3201 – Fig. 32). But do not teach “wherein the control module is further configured to: determine that the additional abnormality is associated with the branch switch based on at least one of the total voltage, the total current, or the branch current; control the branch switch to be disconnected; and control the main switch to be connected.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on April 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-14, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rao (US 2023/0120453 A1), Gagnon (US 2015/0123654 A1), Vaghasiya (US 2022/0328273 A1), “Code Changes Based on the 2020 National Electrical Code”, and Lichauer (US 2022/0278519 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
Maguire (US 10,345,423 B2) teaches a system for monitoring electrical power usage in an electrical power infrastructure of a building. The system can include: a power consumption measurement device configured to be coupled to a first surface of the circuit breaker box, the circuit breaker box containing at least part of the electrical supply conductors for the electrical power infrastructure, the power consumption measurement device comprising one or more electrical current sensors; a first calibration device configured to be electrically coupled to the electrical power infrastructure, the first calibration device comprising one or more first calibration loads; and a calibration module configured to be performed using one or more processors and further configured to at least partially calibrate the power consumption measurement device using a Kalman filter and data obtained from the one or more electrical current sensors of the power consumption measurement device. The power consumption measurement device is configured to obtain at least part of the data while at least one of the one or more first calibration loads is electrically coupled to the electrical power infrastructure and while the power consumption measurement device is coupled to the first surface of the circuit breaker box.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicolas Bellido whose telephone number is (571) 272-5034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-1838. 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 (57) 272-1000.
/N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/MONICA LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights