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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,112. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to measurement of current in branch circuits connected to utility power sources to limit the current flow in electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE), with differences between the claim groups being only minor variations in recited scope that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of persons of ordinary skill are taken into full consideration.
Instant claim 21 recites: A branch circuit system for an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSEB), the system comprising: a current sensor on circuit wires of a plurality of circuits of a branch, wherein the current sensor is between a plurality of circuit breakers and a plurality of respective loads, wherein at least one of the plurality of loads is a non-EVSE load, and wherein the current sensor is configured to sense a branch total current comprising a total current of all non-EVSE loads on the branch; and a control module configured to control a maximum EVSE current based on the branch total current to maintain the branch total current at or under a maximum branch current threshold.
Claim 1 of the patent recites: A virtual branch circuit system for an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), comprising: a current sensor disposed in operative communication with circuit wires of a plurality of circuits of a virtual branch, the current sensor disposed between a plurality of circuit breakers and a plurality of respective loads, wherein at least one of the plurality of loads is not an EVSE, wherein the current sensor is configured to sense a virtual branch total current comprising a total current of all non-EVSE loads on the virtual branch; and a control module operatively connected to the EVSE and configured to control a maximum EVSE current based on the virtual branch total current to maintain the virtual branch total current at or under a maximum branch current threshold.
The two sets of claims differ in the replacement of virtual branches with conventional branch circuit, with the usage of conventional branch circuits not seen to involve an inventive step beyond the abilities of persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Patent independent claims 1,10,14 and 16 are exactly matched with instant claims 21,30,34 and 36, with the removal of the virtual branch limitation being common to all the instant independent claims.
Patent dependent claims 2-9, 11-13,15 and 17-20 are exactly matched with instant claims 22-29,31-33,35 and 37-40 with regard to reciting additional feature and limitations to the independent claims. For example both instant claim 23 and patent claim 3 recite the feature of the control module being wirelessly connected to the EVSE and both instant claim 27 and patent claim 7 recite that one of the appliance loads is an electric clothing dryer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN W JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
SWJackson
May 29, 2026
/STEPHEN W JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights