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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 7/18/2024 has been entered. The claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Notes
The Specification has been reviewed and no known errors were found. However, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, with 28 pages of 187 submitted prior art documents, it is recommended for Applicant to include a concise explanation of the most relevant prior arts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, “a plurality on instructions” should read “a plurality of instructions”; and
Claim 12, line 12 is likewise objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,090. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application is made obvious by the ‘090 Patent. The instant application discloses methods for performing the operations of the intelligent electronic device system as claimed with the ‘090 Patent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform the steps of the instant application, as these steps were set forth in the system claims of the ‘090 Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims 1-20are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent Claim 1 define the distinct features, “storing a software program for running an application on at least one storage medium including memory on a device, the device including a housing, at least one sensor disposed in the housing and coupled to at least one power line of an electrical power distribution system and configured for measuring at least one power parameter of the at least one power line and generating at least one analog signal indicative of the at least one power parameter, at least one analog to digital converter disposed in the housing and coupled to the at least one sensor configured for receiving the at least one analog signal and converting the at least one analog signal to at least one digital signal, and at least one processing device disposed in the housing and configured to execute a plurality on instructions to implement a general purpose operating system for executing one or more application; loading the software program onto the at least one processing device, wherein the software program is encrypted when loaded onto the at least one processing device; and decrypting, by the at least one processing device, the software program to enable the software program to execute.”. Claim 12 essentially incorporates the same distinct features as listed above. The closest prior art, Joseph Spanier (US Pub No 2014/0025321), discloses a smart electrical meter comprising analog-to-digital converters, the collecting and transferring of read data using FTP server running on the IED, which fails to suggest the claimed limitations as mentioned above in combination with other claimed elements as a whole. Therefore, the above features in conjunction with all other limitations of the claim and dependent claims are hereby allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CARL COLIN can be reached on (571) 272-3862. 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.
/Chau Le/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493