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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 06/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 4-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5875087; hereinafter "Spencer") in view of Kiko, Frederick J. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20090206059; hereinafter "Kiko").
As per claim 1, Spencer teaches:
An electrical circuit breaker panel comprising:
Spencer teaches an electric circuit breaker panel. (Spencer: abstract)
a switch coupled to a processor, a load terminal coupled to a branch circuit and a power connector coupled to an electrical power input of the electrical circuit breaker panel;
Spencer teaches a processing unit within a central processor 22. (Spencer: col. 6 lines 5-24 Figs. 2, 5) Spencer teaches a switch 32 coupled to the processor. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 22-44, Fig. 2) Spencer teaches a power connector coupled to an electrical power input of the breaker 12. (Spencer: col. 4 lines 51-64, Fig. 1) Spencer further teaches a branch circuit 14 connecting the breaker to the load. Id.
a sensor connected to the load terminal and the processor;
Spencer teaches a sensor 24 which may be coupled to the load terminal and the circuit breaker. Spencer: (col. 5 lines 1-23, Fig. 1)
and a network module coupled to the processor,
Spencer teaches a network module in the form of a transmit/receive block 50 which allows wireless communication with a device. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 45-63, Fig. 3)
the processor configured to, sample a current conducted to the load terminal using the sensor;
Spencer teaches a sensor 24 which may be coupled to the load terminal and the circuit breaker and which may sense the current conducted to the load. Spencer: (col. 5 lines 1-23, Fig. 1)
With respect to the following limitation:
and in response to receiving a command via the network module to turn on or off power to the load terminal, open or close the switch when a zero crossing of the conducted current is detected.
Spencer teaches that when a zero crossing of the current is detected, a switch may be tripped which opens or closes a circuit. (Spencer: col. 15 lines 13-15), Fig. 11) Spencer, however, does not appear to teach a command received at the circuit breaker, via the network, to provide power to or turn off power at the load.
Kiko, however, teaches that an intelligent circuit breaker may receive commands to turn on or off power at a circuit breaker over a network from a smartphone. (Kiko: abstract, paragraphs [0066, 111, 120, 179, 184-186]) Kiko teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Spencer for the benefit of providing improved apparatus and methods for, inter alia, apparatus and methods for enabling a user (i.e. a homeowner, consumer or public utility) to monitor and control the power requirements of individual devices as well as of entire systems of device. (Kiko: paragraph [0032]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kiko with the teachings of Spencer to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 4, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a zero-crossing circuit coupled to the processor and configured to signal the processor when the zero crossing of the conducted current is detected.
Spencer further teaches that a zero crossing detector may be coupled to the processor and used to detect the zero crossing event. (Spencer: col. 3 lines 27-46, col. 9 lines 8-46, Fig. 7)
As per claim 5, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the network module includes a wireless receiver.
Spencer teaches a network module in the form of a transmit/receive block 50 which allows wireless communication with a device. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 45-63, Fig. 3)
As per claim 6, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the switch is a relay and wherein the processor configured to open or close the switch is further configured to open or close the relay contemporaneously with the zero crossing of the conducted current to the load terminal.
Spencer teaches that when a zero crossing of the current is detected, a switch may be tripped which opens or closes a circuit. (Spencer: col. 15 lines 13-15), Fig. 11)
As per claim 7, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein network module receives the command from a smartphone.
Kiko, as outlined above, teaches that an intelligent circuit breaker may receive commands to turn on or off power at a circuit breaker over a network from a smartphone. (Kiko: abstract, paragraphs [0066, 111, 120, 179, 184-186]) The motivation to combine Kiko persists.
As per claim 9, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to calculate one or more values of (i) instantaneous power consumption to the branch circuit, (ii) average power consumption over a specified period of time to the branch circuit, or (iii) peak power consumption to the branch circuit, and wherein the calculated values are transmitted via the network module.
Kiko further teaches that the intelligent circuit breaker may calculate instantaneous power used, amount of power used per time of day, and peak power used and transmit this information to a server over a wide area network. (Kiko: paragraphs [0100, 131-132, 157, 170, 172, 175, 176, 185-187, 193-194, 201] ) The motivation to combine Kiko persists.
As per claim 10, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to communicate via the network module over a wide area network to a remote server.
Kiko further teaches that the intelligent circuit breaker may calculate instantaneous power used, amount of power used per time of day, and peak power used and transmit this information to a server over a wide area network. (Kiko: paragraphs [0100, 131-132, 157, 170, 172, 175, 176, 185-187, 193-194, 201] ) The motivation to combine Kiko persists.
As per claim 11, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method comprising:
Spencer teaches a system and method for using an electric circuit breaker panel. (Spencer: abstract)
connecting (i) a switch to a processor, (ii) a load terminal to a branch circuit, (iii) a power connector to an electrical power input of an electrical circuit breaker panel, (iv) a sensor to the load terminal and the processor, and (v) a network module to the processor,
Spencer teaches a processing unit within a central processor 22. (Spencer: col. 6 lines 5-24 Figs. 2, 5) Spencer teaches a switch 32 coupled to the processor. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 22-44, Fig. 2) Spencer teaches a power connector coupled to an electrical power input of the breaker 12. (Spencer: col. 4 lines 51-64, Fig. 1) Spencer further teaches a branch circuit 14 connecting the breaker to the load. Id. Spencer teaches a sensor 24 which may be coupled to the load terminal and the circuit breaker. Spencer: (col. 5 lines 1-23, Fig. 1) Spencer teaches a network module in the form of a transmit/receive block 50 which allows wireless communication with a device. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 45-63, Fig. 3)
As per claims 14-16 and 19, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 4-6 and 9, and claims 14-16 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4-6 and 9, as outlined above.
As per claim 17, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
receiving the command at the network module from a device including wireless network connectivity.
Kiko, as outlined above, teaches that an intelligent circuit breaker may receive commands to turn on or off power at a circuit breaker over a network from a smartphone. (Kiko: abstract, paragraphs [0066, 111, 120, 179, 184-186]) The motivation to combine Kiko persists.
As per claim 20, Spencer teaches:
An electrical circuit breaker panel apparatus comprising:
Spencer teaches an electric circuit breaker panel. (Spencer: abstract)
a switch coupled to a processor, a load terminal coupled to a branch circuit and a power connector coupled to an electrical power input of the apparatus;
Spencer teaches a processing unit within a central processor 22. (Spencer: col. 6 lines 5-24 Figs. 2, 5) Spencer teaches a switch 32 coupled to the processor. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 22-44, Fig. 2) Spencer teaches a power connector coupled to an electrical power input of the breaker 12. (Spencer: col. 4 lines 51-64, Fig. 1) Spencer further teaches a branch circuit 14 connecting the breaker to the load. Id.
a sensor connected to the load terminal and the processor;
Spencer teaches a sensor 24 which may be coupled to the load terminal and the circuit breaker. Spencer: (col. 5 lines 1-23, Fig. 1)
and a network module coupled to the processor, the processor configured to,
Spencer teaches a network module in the form of a transmit/receive block 50 which allows wireless communication with a device. (Spencer: col. 5 lines 45-63, Fig. 3)
Spencer does not appear to explicitly teach:
calculate one or more values of (i) instantaneous power consumption to the branch circuit, (ii) average power consumption over a specified period of time to the branch circuit, or (iii) peak power consumption to the branch circuit, and wherein the calculated values are transmitted via the network module,
Kiko, however, teaches that the intelligent circuit breaker may calculate instantaneous power used, amount of power used per time of day, and peak power used and transmit this information to a server over a wide area network. (Kiko: paragraphs [0100, 131-132, 157, 170, 172, 175, 176, 185-187, 193-194, 201] ) Kiko teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Spencer for the benefit of providing improved apparatus and methods for, inter alia, apparatus and methods for enabling a user (i.e. a homeowner, consumer or public utility) to monitor and control the power requirements of individual devices as well as of entire systems of device. (Kiko: paragraph [0032]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kiko with the teachings of Spencer to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Spencer in view of Kiko further teaches:
sample a current conducted to the load terminal using the sensor;
Spencer teaches a sensor 24 which may be coupled to the load terminal and the circuit breaker and which may sense the current conducted to the load. Spencer: (col. 5 lines 1-23, Fig. 1)
and in response to receiving a command via the network module to turn on or off power to the load terminal, open or close the switch when a zero crossing of the conducted current is detected.
Spencer teaches that when a zero crossing of the current is detected, a switch may be tripped which opens or closes a circuit. (Spencer: col. 15 lines 13-15), Fig. 11) Spencer, however, does not appear to teach a command received at the circuit breaker, via the network, to provide power to or turn off power at the load. Kiko, however, teaches that an intelligent circuit breaker may receive commands to turn on or off power at a circuit breaker over a network from a smartphone. (Kiko: abstract, paragraphs [0066, 111, 120, 179, 184-186]) The motivation to combine Kiko persists.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Kiko further in view of Jauregui et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20030016505; hereinafter "Jauregui").
As per claim 2, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the switch is a transistor capable of a switching frequency of at least 100kHZ at 15A.
Jauregui, however, teaches MOSFETs (transistors) which may be switched at frequencies above 100KHZ at 15 AMPs. (Jauregui: paragraph [0025, 30], Fig. 3) See also Kiko: paragraph [0118] describing a 15A circuit breaker. It can be seen that each element is taught by either Jauregui, or by Spencer in view of Kiko. Switching the MOSFET of Jauregui does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Spencer in view of Kiko. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Jauregui with the teachings of Spencer in view of Kiko, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 12, Spencer in view of Kiko further in view of Jauregui teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 2, and claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2, as outlined above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Kiko further in view of Dobbs et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20070053127; hereinafter "Dobbs")
As per claim 3, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the sensor is a hall effect sensor.
Dobbs, however, teaches the use of a hall effect sensor to detect current in a circuit breaker. (Dobbs: paragraphs [0020-28]) Dobbs teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Spencer in view of Kiko for the benefit of providing a simple, self-contained current sensor unit as an adjunct to a standard circuit breaker, wherein minimal modification of the circuit breaker is required to incorporate the current sensor unit, which, after manufacture, becomes an integral part of the circuit breaker, and providing reduced wiring, decreased engineering time, higher accuracy, and matched current sensor and circuit breaker ratings. (Dobbs: paragraph [0005]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dobbs with the teachings of Spencer in view of Kiko to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 13, Spencer in view of Kiko further in view of Dobbs teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 3, and claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3, as outlined above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Kiko further in view of Mrenna et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5519561; hereinafter "Mrenna")
As per claim 8, Spencer in view of Kiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the power connector is coupled in series to an arc fault circuit breaker in the electrical circuit breaker panel.
Mrenna, however, teaches that a circuit breaker may comprise an arc fault detector 23/27 connected in series to a power connector 11. (Mrenna: col. 3 lines 14-61, Fig. 1) Mrenna teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Spencer in view of Kiko for the benefit of meeting needs including an improved circuit breaker with an inexpensive arrangement and which requires a minimum of space. (Mrenna: col. 2 lines 6-31) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mrenna with the teachings of Spencer in view of Kiko to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 18, Spencer in view of Kiko further in view of Mrenna teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 8, and claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights