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 15 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the combination of Ingels (US 2011/0245988) and Lee ( US 6,969,927) fails to render the claim obvious. Specifically, that the lower threshold current of Lee is specific to the AC supply power and not a detected current draw of an electric load. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ingels already discloses measuring the load current for a plurality of loads [see paragraph 0107] and switching between power sources based on the first power feed becoming unstable or failing [see paragraph 0028]. Ingels further logs various parameters when the first power feed is unstable or failing and switches to the second power feed including “current decrease” in paragraph 0076.
Lee specifically states switching to an alternate current power source when a current is below a prescribed threshold [see column 4, lines 18-24] which when combined with Ingels allows the system of Ingels to use current falling below a threshold (unstable power supply) for switching to another power supply.
It is the combination of Ingels in view of Lee that teach switching between power supplies when a detected current draw of an electric load falls below a threshold. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the Amendments, Saavedra (US 2016/0282892) was used to disclose utility power supply and battery power supply and will be used for the amended claims.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, the rejection will be maintained for record purposes, but the Applicant’s request to be held in abeyance until there is an indication of allowable subject matter is noted.
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 1-3, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0245988 by Ingels et al. (Ingels hereinafter) in view of US 6,969,927 by Lee in further view of US 2016/0282892 by Saavedra et al. (Saavedra hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ingels discloses a switching panel [see at least Figure 1, (100)] for providing electrical power to a plurality of electric loads [see at least Figure 1, (111)-(118)] from a first power supply [see at least Figure 1, (101)] or a second power supply [see at least Figure 1, (102)], comprising: a plurality of switching elements each connected to both the first power supply and the second power supply and to at least one electric load within the plurality of electric loads [see at least Figure 1, (131)-(138)], wherein each of the plurality of switching elements is operable in a first condition and a second condition [see at least paragraph 0103]; a controller operatively connected to each of the plurality of switching elements [see at least Figure 1, (161)], wherein the controller is operable to independently control a condition of each of the switching elements [see at least paragraph 0103]; and a plurality of current sensors each in communication with the controller [see at least Figure 1, (101)-(108)], wherein each of the current sensors is positioned between one of the switching elements and at least one electric load of the plurality of electric loads associated with the switching element [see at least Figure 1, (131) to (121) to (111)], wherein each of the plurality of current sensors is operable to detect a current draw of the at least one electric load associated with the switching element [see at least paragraph 0103]; wherein the first power supply and second power supply are configured to supply power to the switching panel simultaneously [see at least paragraph 0105].
Ingels discloses using above and below threshold data [see at least paragraph 0092], but fails to disclose and wherein the controller is configured to, upon receiving an indication that the detected current draw of the at least one electric load associated with the switching element is below a threshold current value, transition one or more of the plurality of switching elements from the first condition to the second condition. However, Lee discloses a power switching apparatus [see at least Abstract] which operates a switch when current falls below a threshold [see at least column 4, lines 18-24].
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 Ingels to include transitioning the switching element when the current draw is below a threshold, as disclosed by Lee, to allow the system to transition to from the first power supply to the second power supply during a low current event. Thus, offering the benefit of preventing undercurrent situations, which could damage equipment, and allowing the system to maintain power supply to the load.
Ingels in view of Lee fails to disclose a utility power source and a battery power source. However, Saavedra discloses a multi-power source system [see at least Abstract] which can be supplied by both a utility grid and a battery power source [see at least paragraph 0032, “electrical utility grid” and “battery-based backup power source”].
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 Ingels in view of Lee to include the utility power source and the battery power source, as disclosed by Saavedra, as these are common and well-known power supplies which offer the benefit of wide availability.
Regarding claim 2, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Ingels discloses wherein each of the plurality of switching elements is configured to transition to an open condition upon receiving an indication from a corresponding one of the current sensors that a sensed current downstream of the switching element has exceeded a second threshold current value [see at least paragraph 0028, “The processor shall avoid that one power feed becomes overloaded by switching off certain ports”; paragraph 0060; paragraph 0107].
Regarding claim 3, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 2.
Ingels discloses wherein the at least one electric load associated with the switching element is connected to the utility power supply when the switching element is in the first condition, is connected to the battery power supply when the switching element is in the second condition, and is disconnected from both the utility power supply and the battery power supply when the switching element is in the open condition [see at least paragraph 0071].
Regarding claim 7, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Saavedra discloses further comprising a tertiary power supply, wherein the tertiary power supply is connected to each of the plurality of switching elements, wherein each of the plurality of switching elements is further operable in a third condition, wherein the tertiary power supply is configured to supply power to the switching panel simultaneously with the utility power supply and the battery power supply, and wherein the controller is configured to transition one or more of the plurality of switching elements to the third condition to connect the tertiary power supply to at least one electric load of the plurality of electric loads [see at least Figure 3, (240), (250) and (260)].
Regarding claim 8, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein each of the switching elements is a MOSFET [see at least column 9, line 33].
Regarding claim 9, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein each of the switching elements is an insulated-gate bipolar transistor [see at least column 9, line 33].
Regarding claim 10, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Ingels discloses a multi-position switch [see at least Figure 1, (131)].
Lee discloses using a relay [see at least column 2, lines 15-35].
Regarding claim 12, Ingels discloses a switching panel [see at least Figure 1, (100)] for providing electrical power to an electric load [see at least Figure 1, (111)-(118)] from multiple power supplies configured to supply power to the switching panel simultaneously [see at least Figure 1, (101) and (102)], the switching panel comprising: a switching element [see at least Figure 1, (131)-(138)] connected to each of a first power supply [see at least Figure 1, (101)] and a second power supply [see at least Figure 1, (102)], and configured to transmit electrical power received from the first power supply or the second power supply to at least one electric load coupled to the switching element [see at least Figure 1, (111)-(118)], the switching element being operable in a first condition, a second condition, and an open condition [see at least paragraph 0071]; a controller operatively connected to the switching element and operable to control a condition of the switching element [see at least Figure 1, (161)]; and a current sensor in communication with the controller, wherein the current sensor is positioned between the switching element and the electric load [see at least Figure 1, (121)-(128)], wherein the current sensor is operable to detect a current draw of the electric load [see at least paragraph 0107].
Ingels discloses using above and below threshold data [see at least paragraph 0092], but fails to disclose and wherein the controller is configured to, upon receiving an indication that the detected current draw of the at least one electric load associated with the switching element is below a threshold current value, transition one or more of the plurality of switching elements from the first condition to the second condition. However, Lee discloses a power switching apparatus [see at least Abstract] which operates a switch when current falls below a threshold [see at least column 4, lines 18-24].
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 Ingels to include transitioning the switching element when the current draw is below a threshold, as disclosed by Lee, to allow the system to transition to from the first power supply to the second power supply during a low current event. Thus, offering the benefit of preventing undercurrent situations, which could damage equipment, and allowing the system to maintain power supply to the load.
Ingels in view of Lee fails to disclose a utility power source and a battery power source. However, Saavedra discloses a multi-power source system [see at least Abstract] which can be supplied by both a utility grid and a battery power source [see at least paragraph 0032, “electrical utility grid” and “battery-based backup power source”].
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 Ingels in view of Lee to include the utility power source and the battery power source, as disclosed by Saavedra, as these are common and well-known power supplies which offer the benefit of wide availability.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0245988 by Ingels et al. (Ingels hereinafter) in view of US 6,969,927 by Lee in further view of US 2016/0282892 by Saavedra et al. (Saavedra hereinafter) and US 2014/0327315 by Baba.
Regarding claim 11, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery power supply is connected to a DC-AC inverter, wherein the DC-AC inverter is configured to supply AC electrical power to the plurality of switching elements. However, Baba discloses a multi-power source system [see at least Abstract] which utilizes an inverter to convert a DC power source to AC power [see at least paragraph 0112; Figure 2, (125)].
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 Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra to utilize an inverter for the battery power supply, as disclosed by Baba, to allow for DC systems, such as backup battery power supplies, to connect to the system and provide AC power. Thus, creating the benefit of providing power to the system when the first power supply is down.
Regarding claim 13, Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra teaches the switching panel of claim 12.
Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra fails to teach wherein a DC-AC inverter is positioned between the second power supply and the switching panel, the DC-AC inverter being configured invert DC electrical power from the second power supply into AC electrical power to supply AC electrical power to the switching element. However, Baba discloses a multi-power source system [see at least Abstract] which utilizes an inverter to convert a DC power source to AC power [see at least paragraph 0112; Figure 2, (125)].
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 Ingels in view of Lee in further view of Saavedra to utilize an inverter for the battery power supply, as disclosed by Baba, to allow for DC systems, such as backup battery power supplies, to connect to the system and provide AC power. Thus, creating the benefit of providing power to the system when the first power supply is down.
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 1-3 and 7-10 and 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,139,681 in view of US 2016/0282892 by Saavedra et al. (Saavedra hereinafter).
Claim 1 of the Patent contains all of the components and current threshold operation of the Application claims 1 and 12 as well as exceeding a threshold in the Application claim 2, the utility power supply of the Application claim 4 and the generator of the Application claim 5. Claims 5, 6 and 7 of the Patent contain the limitations of claims 8, 9 and 10 of the Application, respectively.
The claims differ in the use of a utility power supply and a battery power supply. However, Saavedra disclose the use of a utility power supply and a battery power supply in a similar system [see at least paragraph 0032, “the electrical grid” and “battery-based backup power source”].
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 Patent to use a utility power supply and a battery power supply, as disclosed by Saavedra, as these are common and well-known power supplies which offer the benefit of wide availability.
Regarding claim 7, the Patent provides the basis for claim 6, but fails to disclose further comprising a tertiary power supply, wherein the tertiary power supply is connected to each of the plurality of switching elements, wherein each of the plurality of switching elements is further operable in a third condition, wherein the tertiary power supply is configured to supply power to the switching panel simultaneously with the utility power supply and the battery power supply, and wherein the controller is configured to transition one or more of the plurality of switching elements to the third condition to connect the tertiary power supply to at least one electric load of the plurality of electric loads. However, this is a duplication of parts and Saavedra discloses this limitation [see at least Figure 3, (240), (250) and (260)].
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 have a third power supply attached to the system to offer further redundancy. Thus, increasing stability and ensuring the system can remain operational.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,139,681 in view of US 2016/0282892 by Saavedra et al. (Saavedra hereinafter) in further view of US 2014/0327315 by Baba.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the Patent in view of Saavedra provides the basis for claims 11 and 13, but fails to disclose wherein the battery power supply is connected to a DC-AC inverter, wherein the DC-AC inverter is configured to supply AC electrical power to the plurality of switching elements. However, Baba discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0112; Figure 2, (125)].
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 utilize an inverter for the battery power supply, as disclosed by Baba, to allow for DC systems, such as backup battery power supplies, to connect to the system and provide AC power. Thus, creating the benefit of providing power to the system when the first power supply is down.
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