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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2025, 14 May 2025 and 29 October 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, 28-30, 32-33, 35-37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0240902 by Burch in view of US 2008/0019067 by Reynolds et al. (Reynolds hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Burch discloses a power distribution unit [see at least Figure 2, (110)] comprising: a plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 2, (140A)-(140D)]; an input interface [see at least Figure 2, (130)]; and a controller [see at least Figure 2, (150)] configured to: receive disconnect priorities associated with the plurality of outlet circuits, assign priority levels to the plurality of outlet circuits according to the disconnect priorities [see at least paragraph 0029; Figure 5, (202)]; and disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits according to the priority levels until a sum current level [see at least Figure 5, (214)] falls below a priority disconnect current threshold [see at least paragraphs 0039-0040].
Burch fails to disclose remotely receiving controls through a network. However, Reynolds discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0183].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels in order for users to change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, allowing for priority levels to be updated from a central location and remotely monitored for better control.
Regarding claim 22, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Reynolds discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive the disconnect priorities at the power distribution unit via a wired connection to an external setting device [see at least paragraphs 0049, 0096 and 0100].
Regarding claim 23, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch discloses wherein the sum current level is a summation of currents drawn by the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 5, (214)].
Regarding claim 25, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch discloses wherein the controller is further configured to disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits according to a mode of each of the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 5, (204)], wherein the mode includes an always-on mode in which a priority disconnect operation is disabled and a priority disconnect mode in which the priority disconnect operation is enabled [see at least paragraph 0037].
Regarding claim 26, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: trip a main breaker configured to disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 2, (136); paragraph 0022].
Regarding claim 28, Burch discloses a method of configuring a power distribution unit [see at least Figure 2, (110)], the method comprising: receiving disconnect priorities associated with a plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 2, (140A)-(140D)] of the power distribution unit; assigning priority levels to the plurality of outlet circuits based on the disconnect priorities [see at least paragraph 0029; Figure 5, (202)]; and is connecting the plurality of outlet circuits according to the priority levels [see at least Figure 5, (200)] until a sum current level of the plurality of outlet circuits falls below a priority disconnect current threshold [see at least paragraphs 0039-0040].
Burch fails to disclose remotely receiving controls through a network. However, Reynolds discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0183].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels in order for users to change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, allowing for priority levels to be updated from a central location and remotely monitored for better control.
Regarding claim 29, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the method of claim 28.
Reynolds discloses the method further including: receiving the disconnect priorities at the input interface via a wired connection to an external setting device [see at least paragraphs 0049, 0096 and 0100].
Regarding claim 30, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch discloses wherein the sum current level is a summation of currents drawn by the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 5, (214)].
Regarding claim 32, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch discloses wherein disconnecting the plurality of outlet circuits according to the priority levels further includes disconnecting the plurality of outlet circuits according to a mode of each of the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 5, (204)], wherein the mode includes an always-on mode in which a priority disconnect operation is disabled and a priority disconnect mode in which the priority disconnect operation is enabled [see at least paragraph 0037].
Regarding claim 33, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch discloses further comprising: tripping a main breaker to disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 2, (136); paragraph 0022].
Regarding claim 35, Burch discloses a power distribution system [see at least Figure 2] comprising: a power distribution unit [see at least Figure 2, (110)] including a plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 2, (140A)-(140D)]: a controller [see at least Figure 2, (150)] configured to: set priority levels for the plurality of outlet circuits based on disconnect priorities established [see at least paragraph 0029; Figure 5, (202)]; and configure the power distribution unit to disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits according to the priority levels until a sum current level of the plurality of outlet circuits falls below a priority disconnect current threshold [see at least Figure 5, (214); paragraphs 0039-0040].
Burch fails to disclose remotely receiving controls through a network. However, Reynolds discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0183].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels in order for users to change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, allowing for priority levels to be updated from a central location and remotely monitored for better control.
Regarding claim 36, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution system of claim 35.
Reynolds discloses wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the disconnect priorities to the power distribution unit via a wired connection [see at least paragraphs 0049, 0096 and 0100].
Regarding claim 37, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution system of claim 35.
Burch discloses wherein the sum current level is a summation of currents drawn by the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 5, (214)].
Regarding claim 39, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution system of claim 35.
Burch discloses wherein the power distribution unit is configured to: disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits according to a mode of each of the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 5, (204)], wherein the mode includes an always-on mode in which a priority disconnect operation is disabled and a priority disconnect mode in which the priority disconnect operation is enabled [see at least paragraph 0037].
Regarding claim 40, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution system of claim 35.
Burch discloses wherein the power distribution unit is configured to: trip a main breaker configured to disconnect the plurality of outlet circuits [see at least Figure 2, (136); paragraph 0022].
Claims 24, 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0240902 by Burch in view of US 2008/0019067 by Reynolds et al. (Reynolds hereinafter) in further view of US 2011/0292869 by Krieter.
Regarding claim 24, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to: indicate an amount of current drawn by an outlet circuit selected from the plurality of outlet circuits via a current draw indicator. However, Krieter discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0015; claim 6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to display the amount of current to allow a user to manage the current draw. Thus, allowing the user to take steps to prevent the circuit from being shut down and allowing the system to remain operational.
Regarding claim 31, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach further comprising: indicating an amount of current drawn by an outlet circuit selected from the plurality of outlet circuits via a current draw indicator. However, Krieter discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0015; claim 6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to display the amount of current to allow a user to manage the current draw. Thus, allowing the user to take steps to prevent the circuit from being shut down and allowing the system to remain operational.
Regarding claim 38, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution system of claim 35.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach wherein the power distribution unit is configured to: indicate an amount of current drawn by an outlet circuit selected from the plurality of outlet circuits via a current draw indicator. However, Krieter discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0015; claim 6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to display the amount of current to allow a user to manage the current draw. Thus, allowing the user to take steps to prevent the circuit from being shut down and allowing the system to remain operational.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0240902 by Burch in view of US 2008/0019067 by Reynolds et al. (Reynolds hereinafter) in further view of US 2010/0305769 by Jones et al. (Jones hereinafter).
Regarding claim 27, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to: indicate, via an indicator, at least one selected from a group consisting of: that a sum current level of the plurality of outlet circuits is approaching a priority disconnect threshold before the sum current level exceeds the priority disconnect threshold; and that a first current level of a first outlet circuit of the plurality of outlet circuits is approaching an individual circuit current threshold before the first current level exceeds the individual circuit current threshold. However, Jones discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0070].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to indicate when a current level is approaching the current threshold in order to notify a user. Thus, allowing the user to take steps to prevent the circuit from being shut down and allowing the system to remain operational.
Regarding claim 34, Burch in view of Reynolds teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach further comprising: indicating, via an indicator connected to a controller of the power distribution unit, at least one selected from a group of: that a sum current level of the plurality of outlet circuits is approaching a priority disconnect threshold before the sum current level exceeds the priority disconnect threshold; and that a first current level of a first outlet circuit of the plurality of outlet circuits is approaching an individual circuit current threshold before the first current level exceeds the individual circuit current threshold. However, Jones discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0070].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to indicate when a current level is approaching the current threshold in order to notify a user. Thus, allowing the user to take steps to prevent the circuit from being shut down and allowing the system to remain operational.
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 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,158,213 in view of US 2014/0240902 by Burch in view of US 2008/0019067 by Reynolds et al. (Reynolds hereinafter), US 2014/0240902 by Burch in view of US 2008/0019067 by Reynolds et al. (Reynolds hereinafter) in further view of US 2011/0292869 by Krieter and US 2014/0240902 by Burch in view of US 2008/0019067 by Reynolds et al. (Reynolds hereinafter) in further view of US 2010/0305769 by Jones et al. (Jones hereinafter).
The claims of Patent 11,158,213 (Patent of US 2014/0240902 used above) disclose most of the limitations of the claims of the present Application. The remaining limitations are disclosed in the other prior art as noted in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Akin (US 2010/0007210) discloses a power distribution system.
Verges (US 2010/0019575) discloses a power distribution unit with network control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/JOEL BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836