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 .
2. This action is in response to application filed on January 6, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/15/2025 and 7/30/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on January 6, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
5. 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,191,653. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both pertain to a power delivery system comprising: a circuit interrupting device, a first phase conductor, a second phase conductor, a neutral conductor, and a protection circuit.
7. Claims 2-7 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
8. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,191,653. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both pertain to the steps of determining a first voltage, a second voltage, and interrupting current flow.
9. Claims 9-12 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 8, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable upon timely and successful alleviation of the Double Patenting Rejection as set forth in this Office Action.
11. Claims 2-7 and 9-12 depend either directly or indirectly from claims 1 or 8, and therefore inherit the same conditions for allowance.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 8, O’Rourke et al (US 2017/0005443) discloses a power delivery system (See ¶[0135]) comprising:
a circuit interrupting device (Fig. 2A-2F, ground fault circuit interrupters 30) including:
a first phase conductor (i.e. conducting wire connecting to male plug 12),
a second phase conductor (i.e. other conducting wire connecting to male plug 12), and
a neutral conductor (i.e. ground wire) (i.e. the male plug 12 electrically connects to two or more conducting wires an dan option ground wire. See ¶[0040]).
However, none of the prior art, listed above or in the attached PTO-892 form, alone or in combination of an obvious manner discloses a protection circuit including a circuit breaker that opens when a difference between a combined magnitude of current flowing through the first and second phase conductors and a magnitude of current flowing through the neutral conductor exceeds a first threshold.
Therefore, regarding claims 1-7, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the emboldened and italicized features below:
A power delivery system comprising:
a circuit interrupting device including:
a first phase conductor,
a second phase conductor, and
a neutral conductor; and
a protection circuit including a circuit breaker that opens when a difference between a combined magnitude of current flowing through the first and second phase conductors and a magnitude of current flowing through the neutral conductor exceeds a first threshold.
Regarding claims 8-12, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the emboldened and italicized features below:
A method of operating a power delivery system comprising:
determining a first voltage between a first phase conductor and a neutral conductor;
determining a second voltage between a second phase conductor and the neutral conductor; and
interrupting current flow when the first voltage differs from the second voltage by more than a first threshold.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Rourke (US 2017/0005443) deals with an electrical adaptor having a temperature indicator, Chan et al (US 5,786,971) deals with a ground fault protection circuit for multiple loads with separate GFCI branches and a common neutral for the GFCI electronics, Vanderkolk (US 6,788,504) deals with a mobile electric power supply system with deactivatable GFCI protection, Haines (US 2011/0216453) deals with a protective device for an electrical supply facility, Chan et al (US 2006/0158799) deals with a high current ground fault circuit interrupter with open neutral detection, Hamer (US 8,300,369) deals with a system and method for polyphaser ground-fault circuit-interrupters, DiSalvo et al (US 7,639,461) deals with overcurrent protection for circuit interrupting devices, and Rosenbaum (US 5,825,599) deals with a ground fault circuit interrupter system with uncommitted contacts.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY NASH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner‘s supervisor, Thienvu Tran can be reached on (571) 270-1276. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GARY A NASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights