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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/902,617 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/902,617 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Donahue (US 2021/0006073 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Donahue teaches a meter socket adapter (MSA) including:
an integrated whole-building disconnect switch configured to disconnect a building associated with the MSA from a utility grid (see Donahue fig 4 element 405 and para 0090-0093 “The connect/disconnect switch 405 can connect or disconnect the grid and the facility load.”);
one or more sensors configured to capture measurements of grid voltage (see Donahue fig 4 element 414a and para 0089-0090);
a communication circuit (see Donahue fig 2A element 214, fig 5-6 and para 0070, 0089, 0094-0096) configured to:
transmit the measurements of grid voltage to co-located electrical equipment (see Donahue para 0089 “The energy quarterback 414 can comprise a sensor 414a for sensing at least one of current, voltage and frequency, and harmonic contents of power from the grid.”, para 0095 “The energy quarterback 514 can receive inputs from the safety switch 403, and at least one of voltage, energy and current on a path between the grid and the energy quarterback 514”);
receive a disconnect signal from the co-located electrical equipment (see Donahue para 0090 and 0095);
in response to the disconnect signal, actuate the whole-building disconnect switch to disconnect the building from the utility grid (see Donahue para 0090 and 0095); and
in response to a reconnect signal, actuate the whole-building disconnect switch to connect the building to the utility grid (see Donahue para 0090 and 0095).
wherein the one or more sensors include a first current sensor between the utility grid and the utility meter and a third current sensor between the utility meter and a main building panel (see Donahue fig 4 element 414a and para 0089-0090), and wherein the communication circuit is configured to transmit current measurements from both the first current sensor and the third current sensor to the co-located electrical equipment (see Donahue fig 5-6 and para 0094-0096, the data from the sensors are transmitted from the energy quarterback end point to the energy quarterback gateway.).
Regarding Claim 3, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, wherein the communication circuit is configured to, in response to the reconnect signal, conduct one or more logic checks to determine to actuate the whole-building disconnect switch to connect the building to the utility grid (see Donahue fig 7 and para 0097-0102 and 0154, The system detects the energy from the power grid before deciding to connect or disconnect from the grid.).
Regarding Claim 4, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include a sensor between the whole-building disconnect switch and a main building panel (see Donahue fig 2a element 204 and 208 fig 4 element 414a and para 0067, 0089-0090, sensor 414a comprises a sensor located between switch 405 and the second meter plug 404a` that connects to the Facility electrical breaker panel 204).
Regarding Claim 5, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 4, wherein the communication circuit is configured to transmit current and voltage measurements from the sensor between the whole-building disconnect switch and the main building panel (see Donahue para 0067 and 0089-90, “The sensor 414a can further sense at least one of current, voltage and frequency of power between the connect/disconnect switch 405 and the facility loads”)
Regarding Claim 6, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, further comprising a pluggable assembly to connect the communication circuit to the co-located electrical equipment,
wherein the pluggable assembly provides a dedicated DER interface coupled to the MSA housing (see Donahue fig 5 element “Cybersecure Communications Port”, fig 11 and para 0094, 0115).
Regarding Claim 7, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, further comprising a manual override switch to allow for manual actuation of the whole-building disconnect switch (see Donahue fig 4 element 403, fig 5 “Failsafe Control of Inverter, Grid-tied/Grid-Independent Switch” and para 0090).
Regarding Claim 8, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, wherein the communication circuit is configured to transmit a status of the manual override switch to the co-located electrical equipment (see Donahue fig 6 and para 0095).
Regarding Claim 9, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, wherein the communication circuit is configured to actuate the whole-building disconnect switch in response to the disconnect signal from the co-located electrical equipment such that the building undergoes a blinkless carryover from grid to microgrid (see Donahue para 0065, When an grid outage occurs, the system continues to draw power from the solar and batteries and disconnects the connection from the grid with no switching of the supply source.).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue (US 2021/0006073 A1) and in view of Cooper (US Pat 11,522,365 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to capture measurements of current and frequency (see Donahue para 0042). But Donahue is silent on teaching a sensor to detect phase or reactive power. Although a voltage and current sensor could be used to calculate phase angle and reactive power.
However, Cooper teaches a power inverter system that includes sensors that measure “active/reactive/apparent power, per-phase apparent power, fundamental/harmonic active power, power factor, fundamental/harmonic active power, mean power factor, voltage/current rms, neutral line current, phase angle, frequency, temperature and peak value” (see Cooper col 29 lines 42-47).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Donahue to include the measurement capabilities from Cooper to allow the system to react to reactive power when in an islanded system and phase angle when connecting an islanded power system to a power grid. An inverter system may only be able to output a finite amount of reactive power and might need the sensors to monitor the amount of reactive power supplied.
Regarding Claim 10, Donahue teaches the MSA of claim 1, wherein the communication circuit is configured to monitor an internal temperature of the MSA an internal temperature of the MSA housing (see Donahue para 0158, “Electrical and thermal feedback in the EQB is used to ensure that inverter frequency of operation remains within safe operating limits for each connected energy load and device.”). But Donahue is silent on transmitting the internal temperature to a co-located equipment.
However, Cooper teaches a power inverter system that can transmit the temperature sensor data from the inverter to a status display (see Cooper col 22 lines 27-39).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Donahue to include the temperature measurements from Cooper to provide a display of the internal temperature of the electronics to allow a user to identify an overheating issue that could cause damage to the system.
Claim(s) 11-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue (US 2021/0006073 A1) and in view of Lapushner (US 2019/0081458 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Donahue teaches a meter socket adapter (MSA) system configured to be coupled between a utility meter and a meter socket including:
an MSA including:
an integrated whole-building disconnect switch configured to disconnect a building associated with the MSA from a utility grid (see Donahue fig 4 element 405 and para 0090);
a distributed energy resource (DER) interface to connect a distributed energy resource (DER) controller (see Donahue fig 4 element 414 and para 0089); and a communication circuit (see Donahue fig 5 and para 0094-0095) configured to:
in response to a disconnect signal from the DER controller, actuate the whole-building disconnect switch to disconnect the building from the utility grid (see Donahue para 0090);
in response to a reconnect signal from the DER controller, actuate the whole-building disconnect switch to connect the building to the utility grid (see Donahue para 0090 and 0095); and a housing physically distinct from and electrically connected to the MSA (see fig 4-5 element 414, 514), the housing enclosing:
receive an indication, from the communication circuit, of a total current provided to the building (see Donahue para 0095); and
wherein the housing is physically separate from and electrically connected to the MSA (see fig 4-5 element 414, 514).
Donahue is silent on teaching a distributed energy resource (DER) disconnect switch; and a control circuit configured to automatically monitor total building current and actuate the DER disconnect switch to prevent overcurrent conditions at the meter socket.
and based on the indication of the total current, actuate the DER disconnect switch
However, Lapushner teaches a meter adapter with a battery disconnect switch (see Lapushner fig 7-8 element “S3” and para 0067) which could be used to prevent overcurrent conditions (see Lapushner para 0033, 0065).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Donahue to include the over current protection from Lapushner to prevent damage from a fault causing an over current condition.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, wherein the control circuit comprises an energy management system (EMS) (see Donahue para 0135-0136, 0143).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, but Donahue is silent on teaching the control circuit is further configured to:
based on the indication of the total current, determine an overcurrent risk: based on the indication of the total current, determine an overcurrent risk, wherein the control circuit automatically monitors total current through the MSA and meter socket to prevent overcurrent conditions at utility metering infrastructure: and in response to the total current being below a predetermined threshold, actuate the DER disconnect switch to connect the MSA to the DER controller.
However, Lapushner teaches a meter adapter that monitors the total current flowing to a facility electrical panel and can disconnect power from the grid and/or distributed energy resource to prevent damage (see Lapushner para 0052-0054, 0067, 0096-0099)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Donahue to include the overcurrent protection from Lapushner to shut off power to the system when an excess amount of current is detected to prevent damage to the equipment.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, wherein the communication circuit is further configured to:
measure one or more characteristics of the utility grid (see Donahue para 0013, 0020 and 0065);
transmit the one or more characteristics of the utility grid to the DER controller (see Donahue fig 6 elements 608 para 0082, 0096, 0106),
wherein the disconnect signal is received from the DER controller in response to the one or more characteristics of the utility grid (see Donahue para 0082, 0096, 0106-0109, The system can disconnect the grid based on whether it detects if the grid is within a normal range.).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, wherein the communication circuit is further configured to:
measure one or more characteristics of the utility grid when the whole-building disconnect switch is actuated to disconnect the building (see Donahue para 0065, 0154);
transmit the one or more characteristics of the utility grid to the DER controller (see Donahue fig 6 elements 608 para 0082, 0096, 0106),
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, wherein the communication circuit is further configured to transmit a status of the whole-building disconnect switch to the DER controller (see Donahue para 0082, 0096).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, further comprising a manual connection switch for connecting or disconnecting the building from the utility grid (see Donahue fig 4 element 403, fig 5 element “Failsafe control of inverter, grid-tied/grid-independent switch”, fig 6 element 605, para 0090, 0094-0095).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 17, wherein the communication circuit is further configured to transmit an alert to the DER controller indicating access to the manual connection switch (see Donahue para 0017-0018, 0095-0096).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 19, wherein the one or more sensors include a sensor between the whole-building disconnect switch and a main building panel (see Donahue fig 2a element 204 and 208 fig 4 element 414a and para 0067, 0089-0090, sensor 414a comprises a sensor located between switch 405 and the second meter plug 404a` that connects to the Facility electrical breaker panel 204).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, further comprising a pluggable assembly provides a dedicated DER interface coupled to the MSA housing (see Donahue fig 5 element “Cybersecure Communications Port”, fig 11 and para 0094, 0115).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, wherein the communication circuit is configured to, in response to the reconnect signal, conduct one or more logic checks to determine to actuate the whole-building disconnect switch to connect the building to the utility grid (see Donahue fig 7 and para 0097-0102 and 0154, The system detects the energy from the power grid before deciding to connect or disconnect from the grid.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue (US 2021/0006073 A1) in view of Lapushner (US 2019/0081458 A1), and in further view of Cooper (US Pat 11,522,365 B1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Donahue and Lapushner teaches the MSA system of claim 11, further comprising one or more sensors are configured to capture measurements of current and frequency (see Donahue para 0042). But Donahue is silent on teaching a sensor to detect phase or reactive power. Although a voltage and current sensor could be used to calculate phase angle and reactive power.
However, Cooper teaches a power inverter system that includes sensors that measure “active/reactive/apparent power, per-phase apparent power, fundamental/harmonic active power, power factor, fundamental/harmonic active power, mean power factor, voltage/current rms, neutral line current, phase angle, frequency, temperature and peak value” (see Cooper col 29 lines 42-47).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Donahue to include the measurement capabilities from Cooper to allow the system to react to reactive power when in an islanded system and phase angle when connecting an islanded power system to a power grid. An inverter system may only be able to output a finite amount of reactive power and might need the sensors to monitor the amount of reactive power supplied.
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 JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/ Examiner, Art Unit 2836 /REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights