DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendments
Claims 21-25 and 27-41 of U.S. Application 18/786,809 filed on June 26, 2026 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Entry of Amendments
Amendments to claims 21, 24, and 27-29 have been entered.
Claim 41 has been added.
Claim 26 has been cancelled.
Rejections under USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to claim 41.
As to applicant's arguments for independent claim 41 of “Independent claim 41 sets forth an assembly comprising "a plug operatively connected to the cord, wherein the plug is adapted to be plugged into a power monitor ... and a memory chip situated within the plug, wherein the memory chip is adapted to store a first scale factor of the first current transformer." If applied to claim 41, the alleged combination of Hannam and Spitaels does not describe such an assembly.
Hannam describes a two-wire sensor measurement and information read-out system that includes a meter connected to a sensor. Hannam, 5:42-6:14; FIG. 1. The meter includes a connector and the sensor includes a memory and a transducer. Id. However, as admitted in p. 4 of the Office Action, Hannam does not describe a memory chip situated within a plug. Thus, Hannam does not describe "a plug operatively connected to the cord, wherein the plug is adapted to be plugged into a power monitor ... and a memory chip situated within the plug, wherein the memory chip is adapted to store a first scale factor of the first current transformer," as set forth in claim 41.
Spitaels does not cure Hannam's deficiencies. Spitaels describes a plug-in module that includes a memory that stores ampacity, poles, cable, size, etc. Spitaels, [ [0061]. The plug-in module in Spitaels supplies power from a PDU to an electrical load and includes a circuit breaker that can provide electrical isolation and overcurrent protection. Id. at [0039]. However, there is no teaching or motivation in the cited references to place a memory chip within a connector plug for a current transformer assembly. The memory in Spitaels serves to store information about the plug-in module's own characteristics (ampacity, poles, cable size), not scale factors for current transformers as contemplated by the present claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the plug-in module architecture of Spitaels when designing a current transformer assembly connector. Thus, Spitaels does not describe "a plug operatively connected to the cord, wherein the plug is adapted to be plugged into a power monitor ... and a memory chip situated within the plug, wherein the memory chip is adapted to store a first scale factor of the first current transformer," as set forth in claim 41”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons below:
Hannam Col 2 lines 50-62 discloses storing information such as correction data and other information of a transformer. The claim is very vague as to what scale factors actually mean. USPGPub 20210011057 of the Applicants family application discloses in par 11 that a first scale can be a calibration factor. Therefore, Hannam discloses able to store correction data.
Spitaels discloses in par 61 any information that concerns with plug in module 20. Par 55 discloses plug in module 20 also can include current transformers. Therefore, the information would be based on the transformers as well. Therefore, the prior art still meets the limitations of the claim.
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 of this title, 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannam et al (US Pat No 10677621) in view of Spitaels et al (USPGPub 20110136353).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Hannam
Regarding claim 41, Hannam discloses an assembly (100) comprising: a cord (114); a plug (J1) operatively connected to the cord (shown in fig 3), wherein the plug is adapted to be plugged into a power monitor (plug into meter 108 as shown in fig 3); a first connection (along 117) operatively connected to the cord (shown in fig 3), configured to be connected to a first current transformer (104. Col 8 lines 1-15 and claim 3 discloses the transformer contains a current transformer); and a memory chip (106), wherein the memory chip is adapted to store a first scale factor of the first current transformer (col 2 lines 50-62 discloses storing information such as correction data correction). Hannam does not fully disclose a memory chip situated within the plug.
However, Spitaels discloses a memory chip (69) situated within the plug (20. par 61 any information that concerns with plug in module 20. Par 55 discloses plug in module 20 also can include current transformers. Therefore, the information would be based on the transformers as well). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hannam in view of Spitaels in order to determine information concerning to the plug-in module based on user needs (Spitaels par 61).
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 21-25 and 27-40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest an assembly comprising: a second connection operatively connected to the cord, configured to be connected to a second current transformer in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 22-25, 27-33 are also allowed as they depend on allowed claim 21.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a power monitor comprising: a power and I/F circuit operatively connected to the SoC, wherein the power and I/F circuit is configured to connect to an interface to control a memory chip of a current transformer assembly; wherein the SoC, the power and I/F circuit, and A/D are configured to: read a first scale factor for the first current transformer from the memory chip, receive a first sensor value from the first current transformer, compute a second sensor value from the first sensor value using the first scale factor, and use the second sensor value to determine information about energy consumption in a building in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 35-40 are also objected to as they depend on claim 34.
Watllingon et al (USPGPub 20210011057): discloses scale factor can be calibration data.
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 DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights