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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Groups A1 (FIG 1A), B1 (FIG 2A) and C1 (FIG3) and Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “all of claims 1-20 are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matters of any one Group of claims or any one embodiment would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims and embodiments”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as for the reasons set forth in the 11/18/2025 restriction requirement and notes that “sufficiently related” is not sufficient reasoning to withdraw a restriction. For example, indeed species will be related.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 and 9 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.
Regarding Claim 3
The limitation “wherein the at least one parameter is based on power ratings of the corresponding load” is unintelligible. It is unclear what this basis is since said basis is not provided nor is it clear what would or would not constitute said basis of the power rating of the corresponding load and how this could be the parameter and what limitations this is intended to add to the method step.
Regarding Claim 9
The limitation “ wherein the at least one parameter comprises a voltage disconnect function, and wherein the determining comprises determining the respective voltage disconnect threshold further based on the voltage disconnect function” is unintelligible. Applicant should provide said “basis” and the positive method steps performed in order to provide meaningful method steps to add to the method claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. US 2013/0123998.
King teaches:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a plurality of load connectors (102, FIG1) and from a central controller (117) (respective ones of 102, [0005], ie FIG7) , a signal relating to at least one parameter for the plurality of load connectors (“a signal” read on by said communications signal on the communications network (spec @ [0029]) ie. load parameter connect/disconnect, on/off, power/no-power), wherein each of the plurality of load connectors is connected to a corresponding load and to a power distribution network;
determining by each of the plurality of load connectors and based on the signal, a respective voltage disconnect threshold (see spec @ [0029]);
measuring, by a sensor (114, FIG1) in each of the plurality of load connectors, a voltage of the power distribution network across input terminals of a corresponding load connector (See [0048]) of the plurality of load connectors; and
disconnecting, by a load connector of the plurality of load connectors and based on a measured voltage and the respective voltage disconnect threshold, the corresponding load from the power distribution network, wherein the corresponding load is disconnected from the power distribution network by controlling a switch [0048].
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter comprises the respective voltage disconnect threshold, and wherein the disconnecting comprises disconnecting the corresponding load from the power distribution network based on the measured voltage satisfying the respective voltage disconnect threshold and the corresponding load being connected to the power distribution network (see Spec @ [0029]).
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the disconnecting comprises disconnecting the corresponding load from the power distribution network further based on the measured voltage satisfying the respective voltage disconnect threshold (see Spec @ [0029]).
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the central controller, to the plurality of load connectors, the signal relating to the at least one parameter for the plurality of load connectors (117, FIG1 and [0036]).
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, 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. US 2013/0123998 in view of Burch 2014/0240902.
King fails to teach:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter is based on a user defined priority.
Burch teaches wherein the at least one parameter (ie connect/disconnect) is based on a user defined priority (see spec @ [0006]).
It would have been obvious to used said priority basis in place of or in addition to the parameter basis of King with the motivation of providing desirable and greater system stability and/or ensure continuity of critical loads/services.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. US 2013/0123998 in view of Burch 2014/0240902.
King fails to teach:
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the disconnecting comprises disconnecting the corresponding load from the power distribution network further based on the measured voltage satisfying the respective voltage disconnect threshold for at least a predetermined time period.
Official Notice is taken that both the concept and advantages of providing for time periods associated with a threshold in electrical systems are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to have included the time period in king as these time period are known to provide the desirable hysteresis which prevent repetitive on/off switch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights