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
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 03/16/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 depends upon claim 9; however, it should depend upon claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderford (US 20090146641 A1) in view of Bullock (US 6515485 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sanderford discloses a method (FIG. 8) comprising:
determining, by a device comprising at least one contact configured to connect to a power line circuit located external to the device (Sanderford’s meter 10 has bus bars/sensing blades 26a, 26b, 28a, 28b on base 16 configured to plug into a standard meter socket connected between a pole transformer secondary 34 and the subscriber load (FIGS. 2–3; [0023]–[0028]). The meter thus includes contacts configured to connect to an external power line circuit (the service conductors / transformer secondary)), that the device is not receiving power from the power line circuit (Sanderford’s control unit 48 monitors for the presence of electrical power at the meter (FIG. 8 step 54) and determines when power is interrupted (FIG. 8 step 56), at which point it recognizes loss of power from voltage source 50 and enters a sleep mode for a delay period (FIG. 4; [0032]–[0036]));
determining, based on applying a first signal via the at least one contact, Sanderford teaches after detecting power interruption and waiting for regulating capacitor 44 to discharge (step 60), control unit 48 asserts a control voltage Vcontrol to switching device 53 (Q2, Q3) for a test period (step 62). This causes energy storage device 52 to apply a charging voltage to regulating capacitor 44 through the meter’s internal path that includes socket resistance R3, representing the meter’s connection through the socket and service wiring (FIG. 3–4; [0032]–[0033], [0037]–[0039]). When the meter is installed, this path runs out through the meter’s blades/contacts into the external line; if removed, the path is open. Thus, Sanderford applies a test signal via the contacts into the external power line circuit and then senses a resulting voltage Vtamper at node 66 ([0039]–[0041]). Sanderford functionally checks whether capacitor 44 can charge/discharge (Vtamper high vs. low), but does not expressly describe this in terms of determining a “reactance associated with the contact.”); and
determining, Sanderford teaches after the test period, control unit 48 removes Vcontrol (step 64), waits a sensing interval (step 70), and samples Vtamper at node 66 (step 72). If Vtamper is high, regulating capacitor 44 was charged and is discharging through voltage sensing circuit 58, indicating that socket resistance R3 and the external path to ground are present (meter still in socket). The control unit then indicates that the interruption is due to a power outage and not tampering ([0041], [0044]). If Vtamper is low, regulating capacitor 44 could not be charged (R3/open circuit), indicating the meter has been removed from the socket, and the control unit signals tampering/removal ([0042], [0046]–[0047]). Thus, Sanderford already uses the result of the post-interruption test to determine a cause for the device no longer receiving power (outage vs. tamper).).
However, Sanderford does not expressly disclose "a reactance associated with the at least one contact" and "based on the reactance."
In analogous art, Bullock discloses an automatic power line impedance matching system built into a power line phone jack 100. Existing jack circuitry 101 connects through an adjustable source impedance circuit 102 to the AC power line 108 (FIG. 1). A power line level/impedance detection circuit 103 senses the impedance of the power line by: outputting a tone or signal onto the power line (step 202), measuring the voltage level at a detection point on the line (step 203), and adjusting the source impedance 102 until the measured level achieves a desired relationship (e.g., output ≈ half the input), indicating a match between source impedance and line impedance (steps 204–205; FIG. 2; col 2 ln 41-- col 3 ln 14). Bullock explicitly states that the system “senses the impedance of the power line” used as a communication channel and corrects the source impedance to match it (col 2 ln 26-67), i.e., determines a reactive/impedance characteristic associated with the AC power line via the jack’s power line contacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanderford’s post-interruption test so that the signal applied through the meter’s line contacts and the resulting measured signal are treated as determining a line impedance/reactance associated with those contacts, as taught by Bullock, and to base the outage-versus-tamper decision on that determined impedance/reactance. Sanderford already applies a test signal through the meter’s contacts after detecting loss of power and compares the resulting electrical response (e.g., Vtamper high vs. low) to decide whether the meter remains properly installed (power outage) or has been removed (tamper). Bullock teaches that, in an AC power-line interface, it is known to apply a tone or signal onto the power line via a jack, measure the resulting level at a detection point, and thereby sense the impedance of the power line and adjust the interface accordingly. In view of Bullock, a skilled artisan would recognize that the same kind of applied-signal/measurement arrangement in Sanderford can be straightforwardly configured and interpreted as a line-impedance/reactance measurement at the meter contacts, and would have been motivated to do so to obtain a more explicit and tunable electrical parameter (impedance/reactance) on which to base Sanderford’s existing determination of whether the loss of power is due to a normal outage (contacts see a normal line impedance) or to meter removal/tampering (contacts see an abnormal/open condition). This combination merely applies a known line-impedance sensing technique to an existing test path in Sanderford and yields only predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the cause for the device not receiving power from the power line circuit comprises determining, based on the reactance not satisfying a threshold, that a security event associated with the device caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit (Sanderford teaches determining that a tamper/removal event caused the meter to stop receiving power when the post-interruption test result (Vtamper “not high”) indicates that the regulating capacitor 44 could not be charged due to the absence of socket resistance R3, i.e., an open path at the meter contacts (see, e.g., [0036]–[0042], [0046]–[0047], [0050]–[0052]). In view of Bullock’s teaching of sensing power-line impedance by applying a signal via a power-line jack and comparing the measured line response to a desired condition (impedance “match”), i.e., a threshold condition for line impedance/reactance (see, e.g., col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14 and FIG. 2 of Bullock), it would have been obvious to treat the electrical response used in Sanderford (and, in view of Bullock, the corresponding reactance associated with the contacts) as being compared to a threshold, such that when the reactance does not satisfy the threshold the control logic determines that a security event (meter removal/tampering) associated with the device caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit.).
Regarding claim 3, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the security event associated with the device caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit comprises determining that the at least one contact is not connected to the power line circuit (Sanderford expressly teaches that, after a power interruption, the control unit 48 uses the post-interruption test (Vcontrol, charging of regulating capacitor 44, and sensing Vtamper) to determine whether the meter has been removed from the meter socket, i.e., whether the meter’s bus-bar blades are no longer connected into the socket and external power line system. In particular, resistor R3 represents the equivalent resistance of the meter base between the bus bars when the meter is installed in the socket, providing a path to ground through the external wiring (FIGS. 3–4; [0026]–[0028], [0032]–[0033]). When the meter is removed, R3 is absent, resulting in an open circuit and preventing regulating capacitor 44 from being charged during the test period ([0037], [0042], [0046]–[0047], [0051]). If, after the sensing period, Vtamper is low, the control unit determines that the meter has been removed from the socket and signals tampering/removal ([0042]–[0043], [0046]–[0047], [0051]–[0052]). Thus, Sanderford’s determination that a tamper/security event has caused the meter to stop receiving power explicitly comprises determining that the meter’s contacts are no longer connected into the power line circuit (open socket / R3 absent). In view of Bullock’s teaching that line impedance/reactance at the power-line jack is determined via a test signal on the line (and compared to a desired condition), it would have been obvious to express this same open-socket condition as determining that the reactance/impedance at the contacts corresponds to a disconnected (open) state, i.e., that the at least one contact is not connected to the power line circuit.).
Regarding claim 4, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising sending, to at least one computing device, a notification indicative of the security event (Sanderford discloses that the meter 10 includes an internal radio and remote reporting capability (e.g., an iCon APX meter that can remotely report consumption information to the utility provider) and that, when the tamper detection logic determines the meter has been removed from the socket, control unit 48 can signify meter tampering in various ways, including “sending a tamper signal using a radio device” or setting an internal flag that can be interrogated later (see, e.g., [0022], [0030], and [0043]). Sending a tamper signal by radio to the utility’s remote equipment/collection system is a transmission of a notification indicative of the security (tamper) event to at least one computing device. Thus, the additional step of “sending, to at least one computing device, a notification indicative of the security event” is taught by Sanderford itself, and in view of the combination with Bullock as set forth for the base claim, claim 4 is obvious over Sanderford in view of Bullock.).
Regarding claim 5, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the cause for the device not receiving power from the power line circuit comprises determining, based on the reactance satisfying a threshold, that a power outage associated with the power line circuit caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit (Sanderford discloses that, after detecting a power interruption and completing the post-interruption test (charging regulating capacitor 44 via energy storage device 52 while the meter is in the socket and then sensing Vtamper at node 66), the control unit 48 determines whether Vtamper has a high value at the end of the sensing period (FIG. 8, steps 62, 64, 70, 72; see [0036]–[0041], [0045]–[0050]). When Vtamper is high, this indicates that regulating capacitor 44 was charged through socket resistance R3 and is discharging through voltage sensing circuit 58, meaning the meter remains properly installed in the meter socket and the external path through the power line circuit is intact ([0041], [0044], [0045]–[0047], [0050]). In this case, Sanderford explains that the interruption in power is treated as a power outage rather than meter tampering, and the control unit indicates a power-outage condition rather than a tamper event ([0041], [0044]).Bullock teaches determining power line impedance/reactance by applying a tone or signal onto the AC power line via a jack, measuring the resulting level at a detection point, and comparing that level to a desired relationship that constitutes a match/threshold condition for the line impedance (see FIG. 1–2; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). In view of Bullock, it would have been obvious to treat the electrical response used in Sanderford’s test (and thus the corresponding line reactance at the meter contacts) as being compared to a threshold, such that a normal line condition with the meter installed corresponds to the reactance satisfying the threshold, and to associate this “in-socket/normal line” condition with a power-outage cause for the loss of power. Thus, in the combined teachings, determining that the reactance associated with the contacts satisfies a threshold corresponds to determining that the power line circuit itself is present/normal and that the loss of power is due to a power outage associated with the power line circuit, rather than a tamper/removal event.).
Regarding claim 6, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the reactance associated with the at least one contact comprises: receiving, based on applying the first signal via the at least one contact, a second signal (Sanderford teaches that, after a power interruption and a delay, control unit 48 applies a test signal by asserting Vcontrol to switching device 53 so that energy storage device 52 charges regulating capacitor 44 through the meter’s line path including the socket connection (R3) (FIGS. 3–4; FIG. 8 steps 60–62; [0032]–[0033], [0036]–[0039]). After the test period (step 64), the capacitor 44 discharges through voltage sensing circuit 58 (R2, R1), and the control unit receives a sensed voltage Vtamper at node 66 via line 68/R9 (FIG. 8 step 72; [0039]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). That sensed Vtamper is a second signal obtained based on the earlier application of the test signal via the meter’s contacts/line path, satisfying “receiving, based on applying the first signal via the at least one contact, a second signal.”); and determining the reactance based on the second signal (Bullock teaches determining the impedance of the AC power line by outputting a tone/signal onto the line via a jack, measuring the resulting voltage level at a detection point, and using that measured level to infer the line impedance and adjust the source impedance to match (FIGS. 1–2; steps 202–205; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). That is, Bullock determines a line impedance/reactance based on a measured second signal on the line. In view of Bullock, it would have been obvious to treat Sanderford’s sensed Vtamper (the second signal) as the measurement from which the reactance/impedance associated with the meter contacts and external line is determined, i.e., to interpret and/or configure the existing measurement in Sanderford so that the reactance is determined based on that second signal, as in Bullock’s impedance-sensing method.).
Regarding claim 7, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 6, wherein determining the reactance based on the second signal comprises determining an amplitude of the second signal (Sanderford teaches after the test period and sensing delay, control unit 48 evaluates the value of Vtamper at node 66 to decide whether the regulating capacitor 44 was charged and is discharging (meter in socket) or not (meter removed). The specification and timing diagrams explicitly show that the decision is based on whether Vtamper has a high voltage level (≈3.3 V) versus low/zero at the end of the sensing interval (see FIGS. 5–7 and the discussion at [0039]–[0042], [0048]–[0051]). Thus, Sanderford determines the magnitude (amplitude) of the sensed signal Vtamper and compares that amplitude to distinguish the conditions. In other words, Sanderford’s determination of the line/contact condition (and, in view of Bullock, the corresponding reactance) is already made based on the amplitude of the second signal sensed at node 66. Bullock similarly teaches measuring the voltage level at a detection point on the AC power line (the output of source impedance 102) in response to an applied tone, and using that measured level to infer the line impedance and adjust the source impedance to match (FIGS. 1–2; steps 202–205; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). Bullock’s “voltage level” measurement is likewise an amplitude measurement of the second signal on the line. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Sanderford’s and Bullock’s teachings, to determine the reactance associated with the contacts based on the amplitude of the second signal obtained from the line/test path.).
Regarding claim 8, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the power line circuit comprises an alternating current (AC) power line circuit (Sanderford expressly discloses that the meter is connected to a 240-volt AC supply from a pole transformer secondary 34 and that the meter blades/bus bars connect into this AC power line system via the meter socket (see FIG. 3 and associated description: pole transformer 30 with primary 32 and secondary 34 supplying 240 VAC, with the meter connected between legs A and B of the secondary; also [0025]–[0028]). Thus, the power line circuit to which the meter’s contacts connect is clearly an alternating current (AC) power line circuit. Bullock likewise describes a power line communication system operating over the AC power line (col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). Accordingly, the additional limitation of claim 8 is obvious in view of Sanderford (and Bullock for the combination set forth for claim 1).).
Regarding claim 9, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the device comprises a battery (Sanderford discloses an electronic electricity meter 10 including a control unit 48 and a tamper detection circuit 46 that continues to operate for a period of time after line power is interrupted by using an energy storage device 52 (shown as capacitor C2) charged during normal operation and then supplying power to the control unit and tamper circuitry when the voltage source 50 is removed (see, e.g., FIG. 4; [0032], [0037]). Thus, Sanderford already teaches a device that uses a dedicated stored-energy element to power the tamper detection method when the meter is not receiving power from the power line circuit. It is well known in the art of line-powered meters and power-line communication devices to use a battery as an alternative or supplemental energy storage element to maintain device operation (e.g., control logic and communications) during a power outage or line disconnect, instead of, or in addition to, a capacitor-only storage. Substituting a battery for, or adding a battery in place of or alongside, the capacitor-based energy storage device 52 in Sanderford would have been well within the routine skill of the art, as a known equivalent energy storage element used for the same purpose, to increase backup duration and robustness of tamper detection and signalling, with predictable results (see MPEP 2144, substitution of known equivalent components).).
Regarding claim 10, Sanderford discloses a method (FIG. 8) comprising:
determining, by a device comprising at least one contact configured to connect to a power line circuit located external to the device, that the device has stopped receiving power from the power line circuit (Sanderford discloses an electronic electricity meter 10 having blade/bus-bar contacts 26a, 26b, 28a, 28b on base 16 configured to plug into a meter socket connected between a pole transformer secondary 34 and the subscriber’s power line system (FIGS. 1–3; [0021]–[0028]). These blades are contacts configured to connect the meter to a power line circuit located external to the device. Control unit 48 monitors for the presence of electrical power and detects when power from voltage source 50 is interrupted, at which point it determines that power has been interrupted, enters a sleep/delay period, and then initiates a tamper-detection sequence (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 54–60; [0032]–[0036]). Thus, Sanderford teaches determining that the device (meter) has stopped receiving power from the external power line circuit.);
determining Sanderford teaches after detecting power interruption and waiting for regulating capacitor 44 to discharge (sleep/delay in step 60), control unit 48 provides a control voltage Vcontrol to switching device 53 (Q2, Q3) for a test period (step 62), causing energy storage device 52 (capacitor C2) to apply a charging voltage to regulating capacitor 44 through the circuit path that includes socket resistance R3, which represents the equivalent resistance between the meter bus bars when the meter is installed in the socket (FIG. 3–4; [0029]–[0033], [0037]–[0039]). After the test period, Vcontrol is removed (step 64), the switching device 53 opens, and regulating capacitor 44 discharges through voltage sensing circuit 58 (R2, R1), producing a sensed signal Vtamper at node 66 that is read by control unit 48 via line 68/R9 (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 64, 70, 72; [0039]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). Functionally, this applies a test signal through the meter’s line contacts into the external circuit and senses the resulting electrical response, although Sanderford describes it in terms of capacitor charging/discharging rather than explicitly as “reactance.”);
determining, Sanderford implements a threshold-type decision based on the sensed signal. After the test period and a sensing delay, control unit 48 checks whether Vtamper at node 66 is “high” or not (FIG. 8, steps 70–72; [0039]–[0042], [0048]–[0051]): If Vtamper is high at the end of the sensing period, this indicates that capacitor 44 was successfully charged via R3 and is discharging through voltage sensing circuit 58, meaning the meter remains in the socket, the external path is intact, and the interruption is treated as a power outage (see [0041], [0044], [0045]–[0047], [0050]). If Vtamper is low / not high, this indicates that capacitor 44 could not be charged (R3/open circuit), meaning the meter has been removed from the socket. In that case, control unit 48 determines that the meter has been removed and signals tampering/removal as the cause of the power loss (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, step 72 “not high” branch; [0042]–[0043], [0046]–[0047], [0051]–[0052]). Thus, when the sensed response does not meet the “high” condition, Sanderford determines that a tamper/removal event (a security event associated with the meter) caused the meter to stop receiving power from the power line circuit.); and
sending, to at least one computing device, a notification indicative of the security event (Sanderford describes that the meter 10 includes an internal radio to remotely report information to the utility provider (e.g., a radio-equipped iCon-type meter) ([0022]). When the control unit 48 determines that the meter has been removed from the socket (tampering), it can signify meter tampering in various ways, including “sending a tamper signal using a radio device” or setting an internal flag that can later be interrogated (FIG. 4; [0043]). Sending a tamper signal via radio from the meter to the utility’s remote system is a notification indicative of the security event being sent to at least one computing device.).
However, Sanderford does not expressly disclose "a reactance via the at least one contact" and "based on the reactance failing to satisfy a threshold".
In an analogous art, Bullock teaches determining a power line impedance/reactance and evaluating it against a condition corresponding to a desired value. In particular, Bullock discloses an automatic power line impedance matching system built into a power line telephone jack 100, where existing jack circuitry 101 is connected through an adjustable source impedance circuit 102 to the AC power line 108, and a power line level/impedance detection circuit 103 measures the signal at a detection point 107 on the line (FIG. 1; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). In one preferred method, the system outputs a tone onto the AC power line (step 202), measures the resulting voltage level at the output of the source impedance 102 to the line (step 203), and adjusts the variable resistance of the source impedance 102 until the measured level satisfies a designated relation (e.g., the output voltage is approximately one-half of the input voltage), which indicates that the source impedance and the power line impedance are equal (steps 204–205; FIG. 2; col. 2 ln 41 – col 3 ln 14). Thus, Bullock explicitly teaches applying a signal via a power line contact, sensing a second signal on the line to determine the line impedance/reactance, and using whether that impedance satisfies a specified match/threshold condition as the basis for subsequent control decisions.
Sanderford is directed to distinguishing between legitimate power outages and removal/tampering of an AC line-powered meter using a post-interruption electrical test path that already applies a signal through the meter’s line contacts and evaluates the resulting response (FIGS. 3–4, 8; [0029]–[0037], [0041]–[0047]). Bullock is directed to determining the impedance of an AC power line used as a communication channel by outputting a tone through a jack into the line, measuring the resulting voltage level at a detection point, and comparing that level to a condition that indicates a desired impedance (FIGS. 1–2; Abstract; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that Bullock’s line-impedance/reactance sensing technique is directly applicable to Sanderford’s existing test path through the meter contacts and would have been motivated to apply it to obtain an explicit, tunable reactance/impedance-based criterion for Sanderford’s already-present decision of whether a loss of power is due to a normal outage (contacts see normal line reactance) or a tamper/removal event (contacts see an open/abnormal reactance). Implementing this known impedance-sensing approach in Sanderford’s meter-to-line interface would constitute applying a known technique to an analogous device to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 10, wherein determining that the security event caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit comprises determining that the at least one contact is not connected to the power line circuit (Sanderford expressly teaches that the determination of a tamper/security event is based on the meter’s contacts no longer being connected into the power line circuit. The meter 10 includes bus-bar blades 26a, 26b, 28a, 28b on base 16 that plug into the meter socket connected to the pole transformer secondary and the subscriber load (FIGS. 2–3; [0023]–[0028]). Resistor R3 in FIG. 4 represents the equivalent resistance of the meter base between the bus bars when the meter is properly installed in the socket, i.e., when the meter contacts are connected into the external power line circuit (FIGS. 3–4; [0026]–[0028], [0032]–[0033]). After a power interruption and the post-interruption test (Vcontrol, charging attempt of regulating capacitor 44, and sensing Vtamper at node 66), if Vtamper is low/not high, Sanderford explains that this means regulating capacitor 44 could not be charged because R3 is not present—i.e., the meter has been removed from the meter socket and the path through the bus-bar contacts to the external line is open (FIG. 4; FIG. 8; [0037]–[0039], [0042], [0046]–[0047], [0051]–[0052]). In that case, control unit 48 determines that the meter has been removed (tampering) and signals a tamper event ([0042]–[0043]). Thus, Sanderford’s determination that a security/tamper event caused the device to stop receiving power is explicitly predicated on the fact that the meter’s contacts are no longer connected to the power line circuit (open-socket condition). In view of the combination with Bullock for claim 10, it would have been obvious to describe this same removal condition in the language of claim 11 as “determining that the at least one contact is not connected to the power line circuit.”).
Regarding claim 12, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 10, wherein determining the reactance associated with the power line circuit comprises: receiving, based on applying a first signal via the at least one contact, a second signal (Sanderford teaches that, after a power interruption and delay, control unit 48 asserts a control voltage Vcontrol to switching device 53 so that energy storage device 52 drives a test/charging voltage through the path that includes the meter bus-bar contacts and socket resistance R3 into the external line (FIG. 3–4; [0026]–[0028], [0032]–[0033], [0037]–[0039]; FIG. 8, step 62). After that test period, switching device 53 is opened (step 64), regulating capacitor 44 discharges through voltage sensing circuit 58 (R2, R1), and control unit 48 receives a sensed signal Vtamper at node 66 via line 68/R9 (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 70–72; [0039]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). That Vtamper is a second signal obtained as a result of the earlier application of the test signal through the meter’s contacts into the power line circuit, satisfying the “receiving, based on applying a first signal via the at least one contact, a second signal” portion.); and determining the reactance based on the second signal (Bullock discloses an automatic power line impedance matching system in which a tone or signal is output onto the AC power line 108 via a jack, a line level/impedance detection circuit 103 measures the resulting voltage level at a detection point 107 on the line, and that measured level is used to infer the power line impedance and to adjust the source impedance 102 to match (FIG. 1–2; Abstract; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14, including steps 202–205). In other words, Bullock teaches determining the impedance/reactance associated with the power line based on a measured second signal on the line. In view of Bullock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret and/or configure Sanderford’s sensed Vtamper (the second signal obtained after the applied test through the contacts) as the measurement from which the reactance associated with the power line circuit is determined—i.e., to determine the reactance based on that second signal in the same manner Bullock determines line impedance from its measured level.).
Regarding claim 13, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 12, wherein determining the reactance based on the second signal comprises determining an amplitude of the second signal, wherein the reactance fails to satisfy the threshold based on the amplitude being less than or equal to the threshold (Sanderford discloses that after the test period, control unit 48 senses the voltage Vtamper at node 66 (FIG. 4) following a sensing delay and bases its decision on whether Vtamper is high versus low/zero (FIGS. 5–7; see description of Vtamper ≈ 3.3 V when the meter is in the socket vs. ~0 V when removed). That is, Sanderford’s tamper logic explicitly determines the magnitude (amplitude) of the second signal Vtamper and compares that amplitude against an implicit threshold: a “high” amplitude (above the threshold) corresponds to the meter being in the socket (normal line condition / outage), while a “low” amplitude (at or near zero, i.e., less than or equal to the threshold) corresponds to the meter being removed (open path), which Sanderford treats as a tamper/security event causing the meter to stop receiving power (see FIG. 8, step 72 and the associated discussion of Vtamper high vs. not high and removal/tamper in the text). Bullock likewise teaches determining line impedance/reactance based on the measured voltage level (amplitude) of a signal on the AC power line. In Bullock’s preferred method, a tone is output to the line, the voltage level at the output of source impedance 102 to the line is measured, and that measured level is compared to a desired value (e.g., approximately one-half of the input voltage) used as the condition for a proper impedance match (FIG. 1–2; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). This is an explicit “amplitude vs. threshold” evaluation on the second signal to infer whether the line impedance is at the desired value. In view of Bullock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat Sanderford’s sensed Vtamper as a second signal whose amplitude is compared to a threshold, and to express the tamper branch (open path/high reactance condition) as the case where the reactance fails to satisfy the threshold because the measured amplitude is less than or equal to the threshold, i.e., the low Vtamper condition corresponding to meter removal. Implementing the reactance decision as an amplitude-vs-threshold check on the second signal is exactly the known pattern Bullock uses for line impedance, and merely formalizes Sanderford’s existing “high vs. low” amplitude decision.).
Regarding claim 14, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the power line circuit is an alternating current (AC) power line circuit (Sanderford expressly discloses that the electricity meter is connected to a 240-volt AC supply from a pole transformer secondary 34 and that the meter blades/bus bars are installed in a socket connected to this AC power line system (see FIG. 3 and associated description of pole transformer 30 with primary 32 and secondary 34 supplying 240 VAC, with the meter connected between legs A and B of the secondary; [0025]–[0028]). Thus, the power line circuit to which the meter’s contacts connect is clearly an alternating current (AC) power line circuit, as recited in claim 14. Bullock likewise describes a power-line communication system operating over an AC power line (e.g., col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14), consistent with the AC environment already taught by Sanderford. Accordingly, the additional limitation of claim 14 is obvious in view of Sanderford (and Bullock for the combination set forth for claim 10).).
Regarding claim 15, Sanderford discloses a method (FIG. 8) comprising:
determining, by a device comprising at least one contact configured to connect to a power line circuit located external to the device, that the device has stopped receiving power from the power line circuit (Sanderford discloses an electronic electricity meter 10 having blade/bus-bar contacts 26a, 26b, 28a, 28b on base 16 configured to plug into a meter socket connected between a pole transformer secondary 34 and the subscriber’s power line system (FIGS. 1–3; [0021]–[0028]). These blades are contacts configured to connect the meter to a power line circuit located external to the device. Control unit 48 monitors for the presence of electrical power and detects when power from voltage source 50 is interrupted, at which point it determines that power has been interrupted, enters a sleep/delay period, and then initiates a tamper-detection sequence (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 54–60; [0032]–[0036]). Thus, Sanderford teaches determining that the device (meter) has stopped receiving power from the external power line circuit.);
determining Sanderford teaches after detecting power interruption and waiting for regulating capacitor 44 to discharge (sleep/delay in step 60), control unit 48 provides a control voltage Vcontrol to switching device 53 (Q2, Q3) for a test period (step 62), causing energy storage device 52 (capacitor C2) to apply a charging voltage to regulating capacitor 44 through the circuit path that includes socket resistance R3, which represents the equivalent resistance between the meter bus bars when the meter is installed in the socket (FIG. 3–4; [0029]–[0033], [0037]–[0039]). After the test period, Vcontrol is removed (step 64), the switching device 53 opens, and regulating capacitor 44 discharges through voltage sensing circuit 58 (R2, R1), producing a sensed signal Vtamper at node 66 that is read by control unit 48 via line 68/R9 (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 64, 70, 72; [0039]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). Functionally, this applies a test signal through the meter’s line contacts into the external circuit and senses the resulting electrical response, although Sanderford describes it in terms of capacitor charging/discharging rather than explicitly as “reactance.”);
determining, Sanderford implements a threshold-type decision based on the sensed signal. After the test period and a sensing delay, control unit 48 checks whether Vtamper at node 66 is “high” or not (FIG. 8, steps 70–72; [0039]–[0042], [0048]–[0051]): If Vtamper is high at the end of the sensing period, this indicates that capacitor 44 was successfully charged via R3 and is discharging through voltage sensing circuit 58, meaning the meter remains in the socket, the external path is intact, and the interruption is treated as a power outage (see [0041], [0044], [0045]–[0047], [0050]). If Vtamper is low / not high, this indicates that capacitor 44 could not be charged (R3/open circuit), meaning the meter has been removed from the socket. In that case, control unit 48 determines that the meter has been removed and signals tampering/removal as the cause of the power loss (FIG. 4, 7-8; [0042]–[0043], [0046]–[0047], [0051]–[0052]). Thus, Sanderford determines that, when the sensed response meets a “high” condition (i.e., satisfies a threshold corresponding to a normal line connection), the cause of the device no longer receiving power is a power outage associated with the power line circuit, not tampering.).
However, Sanderford does not expressly disclose "a reactance via the at least one contact" and "based on the reactance satisfying a threshold".
In an analogous art, Bullock teaches determining a power line impedance/reactance and evaluating it against a condition corresponding to a desired value. In particular, Bullock discloses an automatic power line impedance matching system built into a power line telephone jack 100, where existing jack circuitry 101 is connected through an adjustable source impedance circuit 102 to the AC power line 108, and a power line level/impedance detection circuit 103 measures the signal at a detection point 107 on the line (FIG. 1; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). In one preferred method, the system outputs a tone onto the AC power line (step 202), measures the resulting voltage level at the output of the source impedance 102 to the line (step 203), and adjusts the variable resistance of the source impedance 102 until the measured level satisfies a designated relation (e.g., the output voltage is approximately one-half of the input voltage), which indicates that the source impedance and the power line impedance are equal (steps 204–205; FIG. 2; col. 2 ln 41 – col 3 ln 14). Thus, Bullock explicitly teaches applying a signal via a power line contact, sensing a second signal on the line to determine the line impedance/reactance, and using whether that impedance satisfies a specified match/threshold condition as the basis for subsequent control decisions.
Sanderford is directed to distinguishing between legitimate power outages and removal/tampering of an AC line-powered meter using a post-interruption electrical test path that already applies a signal through the meter’s line contacts and evaluates the resulting response to decide between an outage and a tamper/removal event (FIGS. 3–4, 8; [0029]–[0037], [0041]–[0047]). Bullock is directed to determining the impedance of an AC power line used as a communication channel by outputting a tone through a jack into the line, measuring the resulting voltage level at a detection point, and comparing that level to a condition that indicates a desired impedance (FIGS. 1–2; Abstract; col 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that Bullock’s line-impedance/reactance sensing and threshold/match technique is directly applicable to Sanderford’s existing test path through the meter contacts and would have been motivated to apply it to obtain an explicit, tunable reactance/impedance-based criterion for Sanderford’s already-present decision of whether a loss of power is due to a normal outage (contacts see a normal line reactance that satisfies the threshold) or to a meter removal/tampering event (contacts see an open/abnormal reactance that does not satisfy the threshold). Implementing this known impedance-sensing approach in Sanderford’s meter-to-line interface would constitute applying a known technique to an analogous device to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 15, wherein determining that the power outage associated with the power line circuit caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit comprises determining that the at least one contact is connected to the power line circuit (Sanderford’s determination that a power outage (rather than tampering) caused the meter to stop receiving power already corresponds to determining that the meter’s contacts remain connected into the external power line circuit. Sanderford discloses that meter 10 includes bus-bar/blade contacts 26a, 26b, 28a, 28b on base 16, which plug into the ANSI meter socket connected between pole transformer secondary 34 and the subscriber wiring (FIGS. 2–3; [0023]–[0028]). Resistor R3 in FIG. 4 represents the equivalent resistance of the meter base between the bus bars when the meter is installed in the socket, i.e., when the meter contacts are connected to the power line circuit (FIGS. 3–4; [0026]–[0028], [0032]–[0033]). After a power interruption and the test sequence (Vcontrol applied, charging attempt of regulating capacitor 44 via R3, then sensing Vtamper at node 66), Sanderford explains that if Vtamper is high at the end of the sensing period, this indicates that capacitor 44 was successfully charged and is discharging through voltage sensing circuit 58, which in turn indicates that R3 is present and the meter is still properly installed in the meter socket (FIGS. 5–6; FIG. 8, “Vtamper high” branch; [0041], [0044], [0045]–[0047], [0050]). In that case, Sanderford treats the interruption as a power outage and not tampering. Thus, Sanderford’s “power outage” determination already inherently comprises determining that the meter’s line contacts remain engaged with, and therefore connected to, the power line circuit. In view of the combination with Bullock for claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expressly characterize Sanderford’s "power outage" as “determining that the at least one contact is connected to the power line circuit,” as recited in claim 16.).
Regarding claim 17, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 15, wherein determining that the power outage associated with the power line circuit caused the device to stop receiving power from the power line circuit comprises determining that the device is not associated with a security event (Sanderford distinguishes between a power outage condition and a tamper/security event based on the post-interruption test result. As discussed for claim 15, after line power is interrupted and the delay expires, control unit 48 applies a test signal via switching device 53, then senses the resulting voltage Vtamper at node 66 (FIGS. 4–5, 8; [0037]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). When Vtamper is high at the end of the sensing period, this indicates that regulating capacitor 44 was charged through R3 and is discharging through voltage sensing circuit 58, meaning the meter remains properly installed in the socket and the external power line path is intact; in that branch, Sanderford treats the interruption as a power outage and does not signal meter tampering (see FIG. 8 “Vtamper high” path and associated text at [0041], [0044], [0045]–[0047], [0050]). Conversely, only when Vtamper is low/not high does Sanderford indicate that the meter has been removed and generate a tamper indication ([0042]–[0043], [0046]–[0047], [0051]–[0052]). Thus, by design, when Sanderford determines that the cause of the power loss is a power outage on the line, it inherently determines that the device is not associated with a security/tamper event (no tamper indication is generated). In view of the combination with Bullock for claim 15 (which merely makes explicit that this decision can be expressed in terms of a reactance-based threshold), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to characterize Sanderford’s “power outage” branch as “determining that the device is not associated with a security event,” as recited in claim 17.).
Regarding claim 18, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 15, wherein determining the reactance associated with the power line circuit comprises: receiving, based on applying a first signal via the at least one contact, a second signal (Sanderford teaches that, after a power interruption and delay, control unit 48 asserts a control voltage Vcontrol to switching device 53 so that energy storage device 52 drives a test/charging voltage through the path that includes the meter bus-bar contacts and socket resistance R3 into the external line (FIG. 3–4; [0026]–[0028], [0032]–[0033], [0037]–[0039]; FIG. 8, step 62). After that test period, switching device 53 is opened (step 64), regulating capacitor 44 discharges through voltage sensing circuit 58 (R2, R1), and control unit 48 receives a sensed signal Vtamper at node 66 via line 68/R9 (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 70–72; [0039]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). That Vtamper is a second signal obtained as a result of the earlier application of the test signal through the meter’s contacts into the power line circuit, satisfying the “receiving, based on applying a first signal via the at least one contact, a second signal” portion.); and determining the reactance based on the second signal (Bullock discloses an automatic power line impedance matching system in which a tone or signal is output onto the AC power line 108 via a jack, a line level/impedance detection circuit 103 measures the resulting voltage level at a detection point 107 on the line, and that measured level is used to infer the power line impedance and to adjust the source impedance 102 to match (FIG. 1–2; Abstract; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14, including steps 202–205). In other words, Bullock teaches determining the impedance/reactance associated with the power line based on a measured second signal on the line. In view of Bullock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret and/or configure Sanderford’s sensed Vtamper (the second signal obtained after the applied test through the contacts) as the measurement from which the reactance associated with the power line circuit is determined—i.e., to determine the reactance based on that second signal in the same manner Bullock determines line impedance from its measured level.).
Regarding claim 19, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 18, wherein determining the reactance based on the second signal comprises determining an amplitude of the second signal, wherein the reactance satisfies the threshold based on the amplitude being greater than the threshold (Sanderford discloses that after the post-interruption test signal is applied (via Vcontrol and energy storage device 52 into the line path including R3) and then removed, regulating capacitor 44 discharges through voltage sensing circuit 58, producing a sensed signal Vtamper at node 66 that is read by control unit 48 (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, steps 62, 64, 70–72; [0037]–[0041], [0048]–[0051]). The meter’s decision logic explicitly hinges on whether Vtamper is “high” or “low” at the end of the sensing period (see timing diagrams in FIGS. 5–7 and text describing Vtamper ≈ 3.3 V when the meter is in the socket versus ~0 V when removed). That is, Sanderford determines the magnitude (amplitude) of the second signal Vtamper and compares that amplitude against an implicit threshold: when Vtamper is high (above the threshold), it indicates that capacitor 44 was charged through R3 (meter still in socket, line path intact), and Sanderford treats the event as a power outage rather than tampering (FIG. 8 “Vtamper high” branch; [0041], [0044], [0045]–[0047], [0050]). This corresponds to the case where a reactance associated with the line/contacts satisfies a threshold because the measured amplitude is greater than the threshold. Bullock likewise teaches determining line impedance/reactance based on the amplitude (voltage level) of a measured signal on the AC power line. In Bullock’s preferred method, a tone is output to the power line and the voltage level at the output of source impedance 102 to the line is measured; that level is compared to a desired relation (e.g., a condition indicating a good impedance match), and the source impedance is adjusted until the measured level meets that condition (FIG. 1–2; Abstract; col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14). This is an explicit amplitude-vs-condition (threshold) evaluation on the second signal to infer whether the line impedance satisfies a desired value. In view of Bullock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to express Sanderford’s Vtamper high—indicating normal line connection and power-outage cause—as the case in which the reactance associated with the power line circuit satisfies a threshold because the amplitude of the second signal is greater than that threshold, consistent with Bullock’s amplitude-based impedance evaluation. Implementing the reactance decision as an amplitude-vs-threshold check on the second signal is simply formalizing Sanderford’s existing high/low amplitude decision using the known impedance-sensing pattern of Bullock.)
Regarding claim 20, Sanderford in view of Bullock discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the power line circuit is an alternating current (AC) power line circuit (Sanderford expressly discloses that the electricity meter is connected to a 240-volt AC supply from a pole transformer secondary 34 and that the meter blades/bus bars are installed in a socket connected to this AC power line system (see FIG. 3 and associated description of pole transformer 30 with primary 32 and secondary 34 supplying 240 VAC, with the meter connected between legs A and B of the secondary; [0025]–[0028]). Thus, the power line circuit to which the meter’s contacts connect is clearly an alternating current (AC) power line circuit, as recited in claim 20. Bullock likewise describes a power-line communication system operating over an AC power line (e.g., col. 2 ln 26 – col 3 ln 14), consistent with the AC environment already taught by Sanderford. Accordingly, the additional limitation of claim 20 is obvious in view of Sanderford (and Bullock for the combination set forth for claim 9.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A: Applicant argues that Sanderford merely applies a charging voltage to an internal voltage regulating device by closing an internal switch, and that closing this internal switch does not result in "applying a first signal" to any contact "configured to connect to a power line circuit". The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Response to Argument A: Sanderford's post-interruption test does not complete within the meter; it completes through the meter's blade/bus-bar contacts into the external power line circuit. For the energy storage device 52 to charge regulating capacitor 44 during the test period, the charging path must reach a ground return, and Sanderford expressly locates that return in the external circuit. Sanderford [0028] states that, with the meter installed, the socket connection (switch 36) "provides a path to the ground potential, thus allowing the charging of the regulating capacitor 44," and that removal of the meter opens this path and prevents charging. Sanderford [0037] describes R3 — which it expressly equates to switch 36 of FIG. 3 — as "providing a connection to ground for regulating capacitor 44," such that meter removal yields "an open circuit and preventing the regulating capacitor 44 from being charged." Sanderford [0044] makes the external nature of this path explicit: regulating capacitor 44 "has a connection to ground both through the load side of the meter, specifically through the electrical circuitry contained within the subscriber location and the supply side of the meter, through the secondary winding 34 of the pole transformer 30." These nodes are external to the meter and are reached only through the meter's contacts.
Accordingly, the applied charging signal is applied via the contacts into the external power line circuit, and the sensed response (Vtamper) reflects whether those contacts remain connected to that external circuit. This is consistent with the very disclosure Applicant relies upon, namely that the regulating capacitor "can be charged only when the electricity meter is installed within the meter socket" (Sanderford, Abstract). That the switching device 53 (Q2/Q3) gating the signal is internal to the meter does not remove the limitation from Sanderford; the claim requires only that the first signal be applied "via the at least one contact," not that the signal source itself reside externally. The applied test signal of Sanderford traverses the contacts to the external power line circuit, satisfying the limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Argument B: Applicant argues that (1) impedance is not equivalent to reactance, and (2) Bullock is in any event silent regarding "determining, based on the reactance, a cause for the device not receiving power from the power line circuit". Neither argument is persuasive.
Response to Argument B: First, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111; 2111.01). The present specification does not employ "reactance" in a strict sense limited to the imaginary component of a complex impedance. Rather, the specification defines the determination of "reactance" operationally: a signal is applied via a contact, a second signal is received, and the reactance is determined from the amplitude of that second signal relative to a threshold (see Applicant's PGPUB specification at [0021], [0030], [0035] — "The transistor 402 and the opto-isolator 404 may function together to provide a measure of the reactance across the contacts," wherein the decision is made "If the amplitude of the second signal is less than a threshold"). Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed "reactance associated with the at least one contact" reads on an electrical characteristic at the contacts that is determined from the amplitude of a signal applied and measured via those contacts. Sanderford determines such a characteristic by sensing the amplitude of Vtamper (high versus not-high) at node 66 ([0040]–[0042]; FIGS. 5–7), and Bullock determines such a characteristic by measuring the voltage level on the AC power line at a detection point in response to an applied tone (Bullock, col. 2 l. 41 – col. 3 l. 14; FIG. 2, steps 202–203). Applicant cannot construe "reactance" broadly through an amplitude-and-threshold measurement in the specification while simultaneously asserting a narrow, strict sense construction to distinguish prior art that performs the same form of measurement.
Second, Applicant's contention that Bullock is silent as to determining a cause for the device not receiving power attacks Bullock individually for a teaching the rejection does not assign to it. The rejection relies on Sanderford — not Bullock — for "determining, based on the reactance, a cause for the device not receiving power from the power line circuit." Distinguishing a legitimate power outage from meter removal/tampering is the express purpose of Sanderford ([0029], [0041]–[0042]; FIG. 8, step 72 et seq.). Bullock is relied upon only for the teaching that an electrical characteristic (impedance/reactance) associated with an AC power line can be determined by applying a signal via line contacts and measuring the amplitude of a resulting signal on the line. One cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is predicated on the combined teachings of those references. See MPEP 2145(IV). The test is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the combination supplies each limitation as set forth in the rejection.
Argument C: Applicant argues that Bullock uses power line impedance "for an entirely different purpose" and that there is "nothing in Sanderford or Bullock to suggest the combination," such that the rejection reflects hindsight drawn from Applicant's own disclosure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Response to Argument C: Sanderford already performs the operative measurement recited by the claims: after detecting loss of power, it applies a signal via the contacts and evaluates the amplitude of the resulting response (Vtamper) against a high/low threshold to characterize the connection state at the contacts and thereby determine whether the loss of power is attributable to a power outage (contacts connected) or to a tamper/removal event (contacts disconnected) ([0037]–[0042]). Bullock establishes that it was conventional in the AC power line art to characterize an electrical line parameter — there, impedance — by precisely this technique of applying a signal via line contacts and measuring the amplitude (voltage level) of the resulting signal on the line (col. 2 l. 26 – col. 3 l. 14; FIG. 2). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement and characterize Sanderford's existing apply-signal/measure-amplitude test as a determination of an impedance/reactance associated with the contacts, as taught by Bullock. This constitutes the use of a known measurement-and-characterization technique, drawn from an analogous AC power line interface, applied to the very measurement Sanderford already performs, to yield no more than the predictable result of quantifying the electrical characteristic at the contacts on which Sanderford's outage-versus-tamper determination already depends. See MPEP 2143(I)(C) and (D).
The rejection is not the product of impermissible hindsight. The motivation to combine, as articulated above, is derived from the teachings of Sanderford and Bullock themselves and from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and not from Applicant's specification. See MPEP 2145(X). That Bullock applies its line-characterization technique in a communication context does not negate its applicability; analogous prior art is not limited to references addressing the same problem, and a reference's teaching may be combined for what it fairly teaches to a skilled artisan irrespective of the inventor's particular purpose.
Applicant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1 with respect to independent claims 10 and 15; those claims are maintained for the same reasons set forth above.
Applicant traverses dependent claims 2–9, 11–14, and 16–20 solely on the basis of their dependency from claims 1, 10, and 15, without separately arguing the patentability of the additional limitations recited therein. As the rejection of the independent claims is maintained for the reasons set forth above, the rejection of the dependent claims is likewise maintained.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights