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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 9/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the Drawings,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment, but notes that the primary issue here is a showing of what the power supply conversion circuit is and the manner in which it is related to the other components. As noted in the prior and instant action, the drawings are objected to because the drawings do now show or reasonably demonstrate “the power supply conversion circuit that is physically distributed between the circuitry at the panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules of Claim 1. Whether the circuit is claimed to be “at the panel mount” or “mounted to the panel mount,” the drawings do not reasonably show the power supply conversion circuit, and how it is physical distributed as claimed. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the drawing objection is maintained.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards the power supply conversion circuit,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments, but notes that the features noted, such as the VSLT model 50, cannot be the power supply conversion circuit. Claim 1 recites “a power supply conversion circuit” on line 6. On lines 7-8, applicant then claims “separate voltage sense lead and continuate termination (VSLT) assembly modules.” By claiming the power supply conversion circuit separately from the “separate” VSLT modules, they cannot be the same feature and cannot be part of one another. For example, reciting “a sensor” and “a processor” require two distinct components, namely a sensor and processor. The proper claim construction is to construe these components as distinct elements. While they may work together for a common purpose, they are nevertheless distinct.
Any argued feature in this section that performs any type of power conversion is part of the VSLT modules, leaving no components to be the power supply conversion circuit. Applicant, respectfully, does not point to any section of the disclosure reasonably conveying what a power supply conversion circuit is, nor provide any expressly statement making clear what the power supply conversion circuit is intended to include. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
As to the VSLT modules,
Applicant has amended the claims to change “for each phase of the power supply conversion circuit to each phase of the power source,” thus removing the previously raised issue regarding these modules.
As to applicant’s remaining three points,
In the first point, the Examiner respectfully notes that the issue here is again that the power supply conversion circuity is distinctly recited from any other component, and where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose or explain what this circuitry is or where it is located. While applicant identifies various features of the disclosure, applicant does not reasonably identify what this conversion circuitry includes, and does not reasonably explain how it can be distinct from the VSLT modules or other components.
In the second point, applicant states that Claim 1 does not require that the power supply conversion circuity to be separate from the panel-mount circuity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. When two components are distinctly recited, they are just that, distinct. By expressly distinctly reciting the power supply conversion circuitry from the panel-mounted circuitry, they are distinct. While they can be used together, the proper claim construction is to treat them as two distinct sets of circuitry. Not treating distinctly recited claim features as distinct would make claim interpretation impossible, because it would become unclear what any particular feature does and does not include.
In the third point, the Examiner respectfully notes that power circuitry is a specific circuit, and power conversion circuitry is also a specific circuit. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that a “main power supply design” as either of these features, and the original disclosure does not reasonably convey that power circuitry, power supply, main power supply design, and power conversion circuitry are equivalent, and such an argument respectfully is based upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but has not supplied evidence to that effect. As explained in MPEP 2145(I), such argument is attorney argument, and that evidence need be supplied when applicant is relying upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know. The original disclosure itself does not reasonably make the connections argued by applicant. Furthermore, the Examiner again respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably define what each of the claimed components are in light of the disclosure. No specific paragraph reasonably sets forth what any of the argued features are such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize proper written description. The Examiner acknowledges that power written description does not require the claims to recite those features from the disclosure word for word, but the disclosure must reasonably make clear the manner in which the claim features are implemented in order to establish proper written description.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
With regard to the arguments on pages 13-29 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
On first note, any rejection where the instant amendments that have overcome the previously raised issues are withdrawn, as will be evident below. Only those arguments that pertain to remaining previously raised issues will be responded to, with the remaining arguments being respectfully moot.
As to the second point on pages 17-19,
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s stated circuit is that the power supply conversion circuit might encompass the power circuit 16, that such an issue is not a basis for indefiniteness, and that avoidance of indefiniteness does not require that every related claim element correspond to a physically separate, non-overlapping piece of hardware. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited MPEP 2173.05(c) pertains to numerical ranges, and not physical structures. As such, that section, respectfully, is not pertinent to the issue being raised. Instead, the Examiner respectfully notes that, as noted by applicant, claim features are read in light of the disclosure for an understanding of those features now claimed. As such, when reading these features in light of the disclosure, the disclosure must reasonably make clear the metes and bounds for each feature. MPEP 2173.02(III)(B) expressly explains that “To comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, applicants are required to make the terms that are used to define the invention clear and precise, so that the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant can be ascertained.” As has been held, “Where a claim lists elements separately, 'the clear implication of the claim language' is that those elements are 'distinct component[s]' of the patented invention (Magnolia Med. Techs., Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., 169 F.4th 1094, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2026)).
As such, an inquiry as to what the relationship is between each claimed element, read in light of the disclosure, is proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), when such relationship is unclear, because it means that the metes and bounds of any particular limitation are unclear. In the instant case, the metes and bounds of what would applicant intends a power circuit to include, in contrast to a power supply conversion circuit, for example is unclear in light of the disclosure.
Applicant states that it is well-settled that a single physical structure may simultaneously satisfy multiple claim limitations as separate portions of the physical structure, but applicant, respectfully, cites no authority to support such an assertion.
The Examiner does not dispute that applicant can disclose a computer, for example, and then claim various physical structures of the computer distinctly in a claim, such as a hard drive and cpu. However, these components have reasonably defined metes and bounds, are thus no issue would arise from such claimed features.
However, it would not be proper to claim the computer, and then separate and distinctly claim its constituent components at the same time. The reason for this is that the metes and bounds for the computer, when read in light of the disclosure, would become unclear. If a computer read in light of the disclosure includes a cpu, for example, then claiming a cpu separate from the computer would make it unclear whether that computer does or does not include a cpu, thus making it unclear what the computer of the claim actually does and does not include.
Applicant argues that the claims do not require circuitry mounted to the power mount and the power supply conversion circuit by physically disjoint. However, this, respectfully, is not the issue being raised. The Examiner is not stating that the circuity cannot be connected to the conversion circuit or located at a common location to such circuit. Instead, the Examiner is raising an issue as to what the power supply conversion circuit comprises, as it is distinctly recited from the argued circuitry at the panel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to identify what components form the conversion circuity such that this circuitry is distinct from the circuitry mounted to the panel. The metes and bounds of the conversion circuitry are, respectfully, unclear.
Applicant then argues that the amendment to Claim 1 now recites what is found in the last paragraph of Claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpreting that the power supply conversion circuit spans both the panel-mount circuitry and the sperate VSLT modules, and that there is no ambiguity as to scope. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While there is no requirement that applicant use the same language in the disclosure as the claims, when applicant chooses not to, the specification must reasonably convey an understanding for the actual claimed features, including proper support for such features. However, the specification does not reasonably lay forth what the power supply conversion circuit is to reasonably allow to be recognized. As explained in the above Federal Circuit holding, distinctly claimed features are presumed to be separate and distinct components. As such, the VSLT modules are not part of the power supply conversion circuit, and a person of ordinary skill would not considered as such. Even to the extent that the VSLT modules were part of the power supply conversion circuit, such a circuit could reasonably be interpreted to but just those elements that actually conversion power. If the argument from applicant is that the VSLT modules perform such conversion, then the power supply conversion circuit could reasonably be limited to just those modules. The original disclosure does not state what applicant is arguing, and the Examiner respectfully notes that what applicant is arguing is not readily clear such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would make such a recognition. By not using the claim language in the specification, applicant’s specification, in this instance, does not reasonably allow the power supply conversion circuit to be identified.
Applicant’s arguments attempt to splice numerous different paragraphs using different terminology together to provide evidence of what the power supply conversion circuit comprises, at least in part, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. There is no evidence on the record, even from the original disclosure, that the power supply conversion circuit must be and would clearly be interpreted in any particular manner, because the obvious requirement that it be a circuit that converts power in some form. In this instance, because the original disclosure does not reasonably set forth support for the previous and now recited claim features, and because the original disclosure does not reasonably make clear what the power supply conversion circuit comprises, especially given that it has been distinctly recited from the only argued components that perform any power conversion, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that these arguments are attorney argument unsupported by evidence, but where evidence is necessary. As explained in MPEP 2145(I), “An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.”
Applicant then argues that the previous statement that the power circuit plays a role in any voltage presence detection is not an indefiniteness problem, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. By claiming components separately, the proper claim construction is to treat these features as distinct and separate components as explained above. There is no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize what each component of the claim are in light of the disclosure, as the original disclosure does not reasonably set forth the metes and bounds of all claim terms, such as the power supply conversion circuit. Applicant never shows or describes such a circuit to demonstrate how such a circuit should be interpreted. This is, respectfully, is a indefiniteness issue as the crux of 112(b) is claim clarity, where a person of ordinary skill in the art must be able to readily recognize the meaning and scope of each claim feature. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
As to the third point in pages 19-20,
The same issues in this section have been addressed above. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the VSLT modules are part of the power conversion circuit, and that such an amendment introduces new matter. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the power conversion circuit such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the VSLT modules were part of such a circuit. Whether they do or do not provide power conversion does not necessarily mean they must be part of the conversion circuit that was separately and distinctly claimed. Such a circuit, for example, could reasonably include its own conversion circuity as evidenced by its very name, but where such circuitry is distinct from the VSLT modules.
With regard to Claim 6 and the arguments on pages 20-24,
As to point 1,
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assessment of the claim features. Claiming, for example, a hammer for driving a nail through a wall only describes the intended use of the hammer. The hammer must have the ability to perform the intended use, and thus must have a structure necessary for such a use. However, neither the nail or wall are required in the claim, and neither are positively recited A hammer in box a warehouse waiting to be sold is still a hammer for driving a nail through a wall, thus not requiring or positively reciting the wall or nail.
Similarly, reciting that the VSLT assembly modules include two voltage sensing leads “for physical connection with a load source of the power supply” only recites the intended use of the sensing leads. These leads are not actually connected with the load source as applicant does not claim such a feature. Instead, these leads must be able to be connected with a load source. The load source, like the nail and wall, is not positively recited.
Applicant then argues that Claim 6 narrows the kinds of load source conductors with which the VSLT modules are configured to physically connect and that such is permissible claim drafting, citing MPEP 2111.04 and 2115. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant is not narrowing the configuration of the VSLT modules, because applicant is using intended use language which is different from functional language. Applicant does not claim that the sensing leads are “configured to” have a physical connection, and instead only requires that the sensing leads are “for physical connection.” The actual claim language, respectfully, is not reciting any configuration of the sensing leads or VSLT module, and is instead only reciting the manner in which they are intended to be used. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the AST is “configured for” physical connection as claimed, and instead more broadly, the claim only requires the intended use “for physical connection,” thus only requiring the AST be able to be used, in some manner, with the claimed component, and does not require the AST have some configuration directed towards such a use.
That stated, the Examiner acknowledges applicant’s assertion that the conductor itself is not positively recited, and thus no patentable weight is provided to this feature. The previous 112(b) rejection in light of this issue is therefore withdrawn.
As to point 2,
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to address the alternative limitations feature, and this rejection is therefore withdrawn in light of this amendment.
With regard to Claim 7 on pages 23-24,
This claim raises a similar issue addressed above, and the Examiner acknowledges applicant’s statement that conductor itself is not positively recited. In light of this, the previous 112(b) rejection of this claim is withdrawn.
With regard to Claim 10 on pages 24-25,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments, and the previous 112(b) rejections of this claim are withdrawn.
With regard to Claim 15 on pages 25-29,
This claim raises a similar issue addressed above, and the Examiner acknowledges applicant’s statement that panel itself is not positively recited. In light of this, the previous 112(b) rejection of this claim is withdrawn.
With regard to the arguments on pages 29-30 directed towards Balid et al. (Balid) (US 2020/0348343 A1) and the previous 102 rejections,
Applicant argues that Balid does not disclose the argued claim feature, because its PMDU unit is a discrete sub-system shown as a single block in Figure 5, and is therefore not physically distributed between the claimed components, and because Balid does not disclose any portion of its power-supply circuitry residing on per-phase modules that are themselves not mounted o the panel mount assembly. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The reason the 112(b) rejections are asserted against Claim 1 is because an understanding of what a power supply conversion circuit can and cannot be, in light of the disclosure, is a critical feature when interpreting prior art. Here, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate any specific limitations for such a circuit, because no such circuit is reasonably disclosed. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that any components or combination of components that at least, in part, include some form of power conversion, can be said to be such a circuit.
The power supply conversion circuit can be considered the PMDU plus its wiring, and this overall circuit connects to both the claimed circuity and VSLT modules as seen in Figures 3 and 5 and explained below. The wiring can be considered the argued portions, and these wires are on/in in the claimed manner. The wiring must be on the VSLT modules, for example, because it is in contact with the modules. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 30-33 directed towards Balid et al. (Balid) (US 2020/0348343 A1) in view of Hibma et al. (Hibma) (US 2009/0212964 A1),
Applicant first argues that the combination does not disclose the previously argued features, and the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the above response.
Applicant then argues that the claimed AVT is a permanently installed, panel mounted absence of voltage tester, and that a person of ordinary skill would not look to a portable plug-in tester to modify a permanently installed, distributed panel mount system, and the Examiner has not articulated a rational reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would do so. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not recite nor require a permanently installed device.
Second, the Examiner respectfully notes that the motivation is to make such a device portable, thus providing additional functionality. The entire motivation is to add an additional benefit by now using a device, in the combination, has one aspect of it that can be moved between locations. This is a benefit, and does not teach away from the claimed combination. Applicant, respectfully, does not explain why certain aspects of the device cannot be made portable when arguing what amounts to teaching away.
As to Claim 4,
Applicant argues that the Examiner asserts the two input prongs are being read as the first and second voltage sense lead and continuity termination printed circuit boards, and the prongs are mail plug contacts, not printed circuit boards. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim requires that the VSLT assembly modules comprise a “voltage sense lead and continuity terminal printed circuit board.” Hibma expressly disclose the use of sense leads on a PCB (Paragraphs [0128],[0129],[0130), (Figures 9, 14). Such a feature reasonably discloses the claimed feature as the prongs are reasonably sense leads as they are used for electrical testing, and are located on a PCB.
Applicant then argues that Hibma does not disclose the first and second VSLT printed circuit boards reside on separate VSLT modules and then argues the particular location of where Hibma uses the device. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that only aspects of the device of Hibma are being taught into Balid. The manner in which Hibma actually uses the device or any other aspect of Hibma are not taught into the combination. When making a prior art combination, the entirety of the secondary reference is not taught in, and instead, only used as suggestion or guide in inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of how an analogous feature can be implemented. Because Balid already discloses the argued features, and Hibma is merely adding aspects to the VSLT modules structure, the prior art combination disclose the claim features.
As to Claims 14 and 15,
Applicant argues that the casing of Hibma is not a protective wrap, as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The plastic casing is reasonable a protective wrap, because is exists around the disclosed device, and that in the combination, such a casing would be around the VSLT modules. Applicant argues that Hibma does not disclose separate VSLT modules, but the Examiner respectfully notes that it is the combination, and not Hibma, that discloses the claim features. While the device of Hibma can reasonably be considered a VSLT, at a minimum, Balid has such devices, and in the combination, Balid in view of Hibma would disclose the use of the protective casing/wrap as claimed.
Applicant then argues that Hibma does not disclose the feature of the protective wrap and VSLT modules be sized and shaped for insertion through a hole in the panel. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, applicant’s arguments presuppose a specific size of, for example, 30 mm as argued, but where the claims do not recite such a feature. What applicant is claiming is that the size of the device must be such that it can fit into a hole in the panel, but the Examiner respectfully note that there are no limits on the size of that hole. A hole can be any size, so long as is not too large to impede the prior functioning of the panel. Furthermore the Examiner notes that Balid already discloses VSLT devices, and they must be sized and shaped accordingly. The only real need of Hibma is the protective wrap, where otherwise, the Balid must disclose the claim feature. That stated, there is no specific limitation on what size the device need be in the claims, and the device of the prior art combination would reasonably meet the claimed features because it is sized and shaped such that it can fit into an appropriately sized hole.
Applicant’s next argument has already been responded to above, and applicant’s attention is directed to the above response. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that merely making something more module, and thus portable, would prevent the combination from working as intended. Allowing a VSLT, for example, to be modular and removable would not reasonably preclude it from function as intended. For example, it is common on electrical breaker panels to have modular switches to can be removed and replaced when desired. These switches can also be permanently installed, but being modular allows for replacement should one fail. Whether permanently installed or removeable, these switches function in the same manner. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/22/206 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e) or fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the power supply conversion circuit that is physically distributed between the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules of Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note: A drawing of the above claim feature is necessary for an understanding of the invention, as it necessary to understand the manner in which applicant intends to implement such a power supply conversion circuit in relation to the VSLT and circuitry as claimed. Paragraph [0085] explains that element (12) is the panel mount assembly. As such, the circuitry in the panel mount assembly (12) is presumably the claimed circuity at the panel mount assembly. However, as seen in Figure 1, this circuitry within (12) is directly connected to the VSLT module(s). As such, no power conversion circuit is shown or explained to be present. Furthermore, while there is a power circuit (16), this circuit is not separate from the “circuitry at the panel amount assembly” and is instead reasonably part of this circuitry. The original disclosure also does not reasonably describe power circuitry (16) as power conversion circuitry as claimed. As such, a drawing showing the claimed power supply conversion circuit as claimed is necessary for an understanding of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a power supply conversion circuit; separate voltage sense lead and continuity termination (VSLT) assembly modules for each phase of the power source; and wherein the power supply conversion circuit is physically distributed between the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules, such that a portion of the power supply conversion circuit is located within the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and additional portions of the power supply conversion circuit are located on the separate VSLT assembly modules not mounted to the panel mount assembly” on the last eight lines introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
As to New Matter:
The original disclosure does not state that “portion of the power supply conversion circuit is located within the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and additional portions of the power supply conversion circuit are located on the separate VSLT assembly modules not mounted to the panel mount assembly.”
1) No section of the original disclosure reasonably explains what a power supply conversion circuit is, or that such a circuit is located “on the separate VSLT assembly modules.” The original disclosure does not reasonably establish any relationship between the above VSLT modules and power supply conversion circuit. The original disclosure is completely silent as to what this conversion circuit includes, and does not reasonably disclose the above claim feature. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
2) The original disclosure does not state that any portion of the power supply conversion circuit is located within the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly. The original disclosure is in fact completely silent as to this feature, in part because it is completely silent as to what the power supply conversion circuit comprises. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what the power supply conversion circuit is, or that any portion of it was in or must have been within the circuitry mounted to the panel mount as now claimed. This feature therefore introduces new matter.
As to Proper Written description:
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose what the power supply conversion circuit is, the manner in which separate VSLT assembly are implemented with respect to the power supply conversion circuit, and the manner in which the power supply conversion circuit is physically distributed between the circuitry mounted to panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules. The primary issue is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the power supply conversion circuit and the manner in which it is implemented as claimed. Paragraph [0085] explains that element (12) is the panel mount assembly. As such, the circuitry in the panel mount assembly (12) is presumably the claimed circuity at the panel mount assembly. However, as seen in Figure 1, this circuitry within (12) is directly connected to the VSLT module(s). As such, no power conversion circuit is shown or explained to be present. Furthermore, while there is a power circuit (16), this circuit is not separate from the “circuitry at the panel amount assembly” and is instead reasonably part of this circuitry. The original disclosure also does not reasonably describe power circuitry (16) as power conversion circuitry as claimed. The original disclosure therefore does not reasonably disclose the above claim feature such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
As to Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-15,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-7, 10, and 13-15 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a power supply conversion circuit; separate voltage sense lead and continuity termination (VSLT) assembly modules for each phase of the power source; and wherein the power supply conversion circuit is physically distributed between the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules, such that a portion of the power supply conversion circuit is located within the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and additional portions of the power supply conversion circuit are located on the separate VSLT assembly modules not mounted to the panel mount assembly” on the last eight lines is indefinite.
Applicant is now claiming a relationship between the power supply conversion circuit and the VSLT, but where, this phrase, is unclear. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the metes and bounds of the power supply conversion circuit, and such a person would not reasonably recognize what structure is or is not part of such a circuit to be able to identify those portions located within the circuitry mounted to the panel amount and those located on the separate VSLT assembly modules. This phrase is therefore unclear, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand, in light of the disclosure, what portions of the power supply conversion circuit is referring to understand how to interpret these features in the claimed manner, and they would not understand how to interpret such a circuit.
As to Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-15,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Balid et al. (Balid) (US 2020/0348343 A1).
As to Claim 1,
Balid discloses An absence of voltage tester (AVT) for detecting the absence of voltage associated with a power source, the AVT comprising:
a panel mount assembly (indicator module L and associated processing circuitry such as the Safe Signal Evaluation (K) in Figure 3 and the Signal Evaluation & Decision Circuit in Figures 15 and 20) (Figure 3), (Paragraphs [0026], [0071]);
circuitry (associated processing circuitry of the indicator module such as the Safe Signal Evaluation (K) in Figure 3 and the Signal Evaluation & Decision Circuit in Figures 15 and 20) mounted to the panel mount assembly for detecting presence of voltage (Figures 3, 5, 19, 20), (Paragraphs [0026],[0070],[0071]);
a supervisory test circuit (signal evaluation & decision circuit) within the circuitry for performing testing (Figure 20);
a power supply conversion circuit (PMDU plus all wiring connecting this PMDU to other components) (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0046]);
separate voltage sense lead and continuity termination (VSLT) assembly modules (E,G) for each phase of the power source (Paragraphs [0026],[0061] / note each AVD / VSLT module is used for its own respective phase of the power source, which can therefore also be said to be for a different respective phase sent to the power supply conversion circuit); and
wherein the power supply conversion circuit is physically distributed between the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules (see explanation below), (Note that as explained, each VSLT module (AVD circuit) is connected to the power supply conversion circuit (PMDU in Figure 5), which is then connected to the indicator module with its associated circuitry located at the panel mount (also seen in Figure 5), and thus the PMDU unit is reasonably physically located between the VSLT modules and circuitry as claimed), such that a portion of the power supply conversion circuit is located within the circuitry mounted to the panel mount assembly and additional portions of the power supply conversion circuit are located on the separate VSLT assembly modules not mounted to the panel mount assembly (Figures 3,5 / note that the portions are the wiring from the PMDU, which is interpreted to be part of the PMDU, and that this wiring must be within the circuitry because it connects to it, and must be on the VSLT modules because it connects to the modules).
(Explanation: Balid does not expressly disclose a full figure showing where all of the various components and connections are located. However, what Balid does disclose, in short, is that there are plural absence of voltage detector circuits (the VSLT modules of the claim), one per each phase, directed attached to the power lines (see Figure 3). These circuits receive power from the power supply conversion circuit (PMDU) as seen in Figure 5. This power supply conversion circuit is then connected to the indicator module along with any associated processing circuitry as seen in Figures 3 and 5, and where the disclosure explains that PMDU “converts, isolates, and regulates various supply voltages used in each sub-system” as seen in paragraph [0046], which must include any of the processing circuitry. As such, the power supply conversion circuit is reasonably physically distributed between the circuitry at the panel mount assembly and the separate VSLT assembly modules.)
As to Claim 2,
Balid discloses each of the separate VSLT assembly modules comprises two voltage sense lead and continuity terminations (Figure 10 / note two leads for two different phases and where ground is a continuity termination).
As to Claim 3,
Balid discloses each of the separate VSLT assembly modules comprises two voltage sensing leads for physical connection with a load source conductor of the power source (Figure 10 / note two leads for two different phases are leads that are for or capable of use as claimed).
As to Claim 5,
Balid discloses each VSLT is configured to rectify half of a sine wave signal on the load source conductor (Figure 10 / note diodes can rectify half of sine wave applied to them that is also used on a the load source conductor).
As to Claim 6,
Balid discloses the load source conductor is selected from a group consisting of at least one of a wire, a lug, a fuse block, an isolator, a circuit breaker, and a busbar (Figures 1,3).
As to Claim 7,
Balid discloses the load source conductor comprises a heat sink (Figures 1,3 / note the load source conductor is not positively recited or required as it is not part of the AVT, and the AVT can be used with such a device, therefore reasonably disclosing the claim feature).
As to Claim 13,
Balid discloses the separate VSLT assembly modules are remote from the panel mount assembly (Figure 3 / note the VSLT (AVD) modules are separate and spaced from the panel amount assembly including the indicator module, and thus are reasonably remote from it).
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 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balid et al. (Balid) (US 2020/0348343 A1) in view of Hibma et al. (Hibma) (US 2009/0212964 A1).
As to Claim 4,
Balid does not disclose each of the separate VSLT assembly modules comprises a first voltage sense lead and continuity termination printed circuit board and a second voltage sense lead and continuity termination (VSLT) printed circuit board.
Hibma discloses each of the separate VSLT assembly modules comprises a first voltage sense lead and continuity termination printed circuit board and a second voltage sense lead and continuity termination (VSLT) printed circuit board (Paragraphs [0128],[0129],[0130), (Figures 9, 14 / note the apparatus is used to test three phase configurations, any of the two input prongs as part of 170 are the sense leads, and any ground is a termination, and the device is on a PCB).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balid to include each of the separate VSLT assembly modules comprises a first voltage sense lead and continuity termination printed circuit board and a second voltage sense lead and continuity termination (VSLT) printed circuit board as taught by Hibma in order to advantageously produce the device in a compact manner that can be inserted as desired into small holes or outlets, and one that is simple and easy to use, being portable and of a single piece construction that can be plugged into a receptacle as easy as a lamp cord plug (Paragraph [0009]).
As to Claims 14 and 15,
Balid does not disclose a protective wrap configured to protect the separate VSLT assembly modules, the protective wrap and the separate VSLT assembly modules disposed therein are sized and shaped for insertion through a hole in a panel used for mounting the AVT to the panel.
Hibma discloses a protective wrap configured to protect the separate VSLT assembly modules, the protective wrap and the separate VSLT assembly modules disposed therein are sized and shaped for insertion through a hole in a panel used for mounting the AVT to the panel (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0007] / note this paragraph is cited to demonstrate that the casing of the overall device, like that of the prior art, must be formed from a protective and non-metallic material such as plastic, which is reasonably a protective wrap configured to protect the modules, and note that shape of the overall device is insertable into the hole as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balid to include a protective wrap configured to protect the separate VSLT assembly modules, the protective wrap and the separate VSLT assembly modules disposed therein are sized and shaped for insertion through a hole in a panel used for mounting the AVT to the panel as taught by Hibma in order to advantageously produce the device in a compact manner that can be inserted as desired into small holes or outlets, and one that is simple and easy to use, being portable and of a single piece construction that can be plugged into a receptacle as easy as a lamp cord plug (Paragraph [0009]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balid et al. (Balid) (US 2020/0348343 A1) in view of Evans et al. (Evans) (US 2023/0246479 A1).
As to Claim 10,
Balid discloses A system comprising the AVT of claim 1 (see above rejection of Claim 1).
Balid does not disclose and an isolation switch, wherein the separate VSLT assembly modules are integrated into the isolation switch.
Evans discloses an isolation switch (110), wherein an VSLT assembly modules is integrated into the isolation switch (Paragraph [0055] / note this switch includes the ability to detect a lack of voltage in connected bus bars).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balid to include an isolation switch, wherein the separate VSLT assembly modules are integrated into the isolation switch given the above disclosure and teaching of Evans in order to advantageously allow not just for detection of power but also to be able to isolate main electrical power and rely upon a backup source (Paragraphs [0055],[0056]), thus protecting attached equipment from issues with the main electrical power until it is properly restored.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
