Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/737,426

ELECTRICAL DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGER MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
ROBINSON, KRYSTAL
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Power-Q
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
652 granted / 756 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
783
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 756 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority This application has Provisional 63/506,953 filed on June 8, 2023. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 29, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “device” should follow the word “electrical” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the claim, when read in light of the specification, fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. The following claim phrases are indefinite or ambiguous: “a total power capacity rating value being attributed to the junction box” “a dynamic threshold value compared to the total power capacity rating value” “when a measured delivered power through the hot wires is below a dynamic threshold value compared to the total power capacity rating value” “activation signal enabling power delivery from the hot wires to the two-pole breaker” It is not clear (i) what exactly “total power capacity rating value” refers to (rated current? VA? combined ratings of circuits in the junction box?), (ii) who or what “attributes” that value and by what method, (iii) how the “dynamic threshold value” is computed or how it is “compared to” the total rating, (iv) where and how “delivered power through the hot wires” is measured (voltage, current, instantaneous vs. apparent/real power, location of sensor), and (v) the direction/meaning of “enabling power delivery from the hot wires to the two-pole breaker” (normally breakers supply power to hot wires, so the claimed direction is confusing). Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. a) “a control module configured to: provide an activation signal when [condition: a measured delivered power through….], the activation signal enabling power delivery…” This recites the control module by function (“configured to provide an activation signal when …”) without any structure, algorithm, or physical detail. If the specification does not disclose corresponding structure (e.g., processor, circuits, specific algorithm or flow). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the claim, when read in light of the specification, fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. The following claim phrases are indefinite or ambiguous: “receiving delivered power reading” “current power reading is below a dynamic threshold value compared to a total power capacity rating value” “dynamic threshold value” “total power capacity rating value of the junction box” “enabling power delivery from the hot wires to a two-pole breaker connected thereto” These terms are vague as to units and measurement method (e.g., real vs. apparent power, instantaneous vs. averaged), how the threshold is computed or compared, and what exactly is being compared to what. It is unclear which comparison is intended (is the threshold compared to the rating, or the current power reading compared to the rating, or both?) -“receiving a delivered power reading” does not identify who or what performs the step (a control module, a processor, a user?) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the claim, when read in light of the specification, fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. The following claim phrases are indefinite or ambiguous: a) “a junction box having a total power capacity rating value” / “total power capacity rating value of the junction box.” The claim does not define what is meant by “total power capacity rating value” (e.g., nominal current rating, VA rating). b) “receive a delivered power reading through the hot wires” / “determine that a current power reading is below a dynamic threshold value compared to the total power capacity rating value.” The terms “delivered power reading,” “current power reading,” and “dynamic threshold value compared to” are not defined. The comparison phrase “below a dynamic threshold value compared to the total power capacity rating value” is ambiguous (it is unclear whether the current power reading is compared to the total power capacity rating, or the dynamic threshold is compared to the rating, or both). Because of these ambiguities, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot with reasonable certainty determine the metes and bounds of the claim scope. To overcome this rejection, the applicant must amend the claim to clarify and define the disputed terms and relationships or provide compelling support in the specification that shows the terms have a reasonably definite meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. King et al. (US 10, 965,068) teaches an electric circuit manager comprising: a housing configured to fit within a junction box, the junction box interconnecting hot wires and comprising a two-pole circuit breaker, and a control module (see figure 44). King et al. (US 10, 917, 956) teaches a control attachment configured to provide power to a load, as well as a junction box with relays. King et al. (US 2020/0412072) teaches an in-wall power adapter with a junction box and circuit breaker. Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F. 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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604407
SECURELY LINKED NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592527
Current Signaling Wall Socket Face Plate
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592552
CENTRAL TENSION LINE FOR OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION CABLE HAVING DAMAGE DETECTION FUNCTION AND OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION CABLE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587001
WIRING MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588159
Dual Hinge Cable Management Cover
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-5.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 756 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month