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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 14 May 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent 10,158,213 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded and the Double Patenting has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot due to the arguments being focused on amended limitation because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching of the amendments to the independent claims 21, 28 and 35.
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) in further view of US 2011/0298286 by Batzler et al. (Batzler 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 a current protection device [see at least Abstract] which can remotely receive controls through a network [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 modify the system of Burch to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels, as disclosed by Reynolds, in order for users to change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, offering the benefit of updating the priority levels a central location and remote monitoring for better control.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach transmit the priority levels to an external setting device to generate new disconnect configuration data based on the priority levels and a user input received at the external setting device and receive the new disconnect configuration data. However, Batzler discloses a load shedding system [see at least Abstract] which remotely displays priority loads on an external device [see at least Figures 4a-4c; paragraph 0038, “If the user interface device 90 is positioned remotely from the transfer switch, the user interface device 90 can communicate with the transfer switch either through a wired or wireless connection”] wherein the user can input various configurations to modify the priority assignments [see at least paragraph 0040, “If the user desires to change the priority assignments, the user can select one of the two other predefined priority assignment programs”] that are used to control the system [see at least paragraph 0034].
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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels, as disclosed by Batzler, in order for users to view priority levels and change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, offering the benefit of allowing a user to monitor/modify the priority levels for better control.
Regarding claim 22, Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 a current protection device [see at least Abstract] which can remotely receive controls through a network [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 modify the system of Burch to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels, as disclosed by Reynolds, in order for users to change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, offering the benefit of updating the priority levels a central location and remote monitoring for better control.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach transmit the priority levels to an external setting device to generate new disconnect configuration data based on the priority levels and a user input received at the external setting device and receive the new disconnect configuration data. However, Batzler discloses a load shedding system [see at least Abstract] which remotely displays priority loads on an external device [see at least Figures 4a-4c; paragraph 0038, “If the user interface device 90 is positioned remotely from the transfer switch, the user interface device 90 can communicate with the transfer switch either through a wired or wireless connection”] wherein the user can input various configurations to modify the priority assignments [see at least paragraph 0040, “If the user desires to change the priority assignments, the user can select one of the two other predefined priority assignment programs”] that are used to control the system [see at least paragraph 0034].
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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels, as disclosed by Batzler, in order for users to view priority levels and change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, offering the benefit of allowing a user to monitor/modify the priority levels for better control.
Regarding claim 29, Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 a current protection device [see at least Abstract] which can remotely receive controls through a network [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 modify the system of Burch to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels, as disclosed by Reynolds, in order for users to change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, offering the benefit of updating the priority levels a central location and remote monitoring for better control.
Burch in view of Reynolds fails to teach transmit the priority levels to an external setting device to generate new disconnect configuration data based on the priority levels and a user input received at the external setting device and receive the new disconnect configuration data. However, Batzler discloses a load shedding system [see at least Abstract] which remotely displays priority loads on an external device [see at least Figures 4a-4c; paragraph 0038, “If the user interface device 90 is positioned remotely from the transfer switch, the user interface device 90 can communicate with the transfer switch either through a wired or wireless connection”] wherein the user can input various configurations to modify the priority assignments [see at least paragraph 0040, “If the user desires to change the priority assignments, the user can select one of the two other predefined priority assignment programs”] that are used to control the system [see at least paragraph 0034].
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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds to include remotely receiving controls to assign priority levels, as disclosed by Batzler, in order for users to view priority levels and change priority levels without the need to be physically near the power distribution unit. Thus, offering the benefit of allowing a user to monitor/modify the priority levels for better control.
Regarding claim 36, Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 in further view of Batzler 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 2011/0298286 by Batzler et al. (Batzler hereinafter) and US 2011/0292869 by Krieter.
Regarding claim 24, Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 a power monitoring system [see at least Abstract] which indicates current draw via a remote network [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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler in order to display the amount of current, as disclosed by Krieter, to allow a user to manage the current draw. Thus, offering the benefit of 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 in further view of Batzler teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 a power monitoring system [see at least Abstract] which indicates current draw via a remote network [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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler in order to display the amount of current, as disclosed by Krieter, to allow a user to manage the current draw. Thus, offering the benefit of 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 in further view of Batzler teaches the power distribution system of claim 35.
Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 a power monitoring system [see at least Abstract] which indicates current draw via a remote network [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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler in order to display the amount of current, as disclosed by Krieter, to allow a user to manage the current draw. Thus, offering the benefit of 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 2011/0298286 by Batzler et al. (Batzler hereinafter) and US 2010/0305769 by Jones et al. (Jones hereinafter).
Regarding claim 27, Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler teaches the power distribution unit of claim 21.
Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 a switchgear control device [see at least Abstract] which displays warning signals as current approaches a threshold [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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler to indicate when a current level is approaching the current threshold, as disclosed by Jones, in order to notify a user. Thus, offering the benefit of 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 in further view of Batzler teaches the method of claim 28.
Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler 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 a switchgear control device [see at least Abstract] which displays warning signals as current approaches a threshold [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 modify the system of Burch in view of Reynolds in further view of Batzler to indicate when a current level is approaching the current threshold, as disclosed by Jones, in order to notify a user. Thus, offering the benefit of allowing the user to take steps to prevent the circuit from being shut down and allowing the system to remain operational.
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 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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights