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 .
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, 5, 8-10 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.
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 primary power supply [see at least Figure 1, (101)] or a secondary power supply [see at least Figure 1, (102)], comprising: a plurality of switching elements each connected to both the primary power supply and the secondary 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 primary power supply and secondary 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 transition one or more of the plurality of switching elements from the first condition to the second condition upon receiving an indication that the detected current draw of the electric load associated with the switching element is below a threshold current value. However, Lee discloses this limitation [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 transition the switching element when the current draw is below a threshold to allow the system to allow the system to transition to another power supply at low current. Thus, preventing undercurrent situations and allowing the system to maintain power supply to the load.
Regarding claim 2, Ingels in view of Lee 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 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 primary power supply when the switching element is in the first condition, is connected to the secondary power supply when the switching element is in the second condition, and is disconnected from both the primary power supply and the secondary power supply when the switching element is in the open condition [see at least paragraph 0071].
Regarding claim 5, Ingels in view of Lee teaches the switching panel of claim 2.
Ingels discloses wherein the secondary power supply is chosen from a group consisting of: solar cells, electric storage batteries, a wind turbine, a photovoltaic generator, and a generator [see at least paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 8, Ingels in view of Lee 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 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 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 wherein the controller is configured to transition the switching element from the first condition to the second condition upon receiving an indication that the detected current draw of the electric load associated is below a threshold current value. However, Lee discloses this limitation [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 transition the switching element when the current draw is below a threshold to allow the system to allow the system to transition to another power supply at low current. Thus, preventing undercurrent situations and allowing the system to maintain power supply to the load.
Claims 4 and 6-7 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 4, Ingels in view of Lee teaches the switching panel of claim 2.
Ingels in view of Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the primary power supply is a utility power supply. However, Saavedra discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0032].
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 connect to the utility grid as it is well-known and readily available. Thus, allowing for access to a steady power supply for the system.
Regarding claim 6, Ingels in view of Lee teaches the switching panel of claim 5.
Ingels in view of Lee fails to teach wherein the secondary power supply includes two or more power sources. However, Saavedra discloses this limitation [see at least Figure 3, (262-1)-(261-N)].
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 utilize a secondary power supply with two or more power sources in order to expand the capacity of the second power supply. Thus, increasing runtime of the system if the first power supply malfunctions.
Regarding claim 7, Ingels in view of Lee teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Ingels in view of Lee fails to teach 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 primary power supply and the secondary 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 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 2014/0327315 by Baba.
Regarding claim 11, Ingels in view of Lee teaches the switching panel of claim 1.
Ingels in view of Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the secondary 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 utilize an inverter for the secondary power supply to allow for DC systems, such as backup battery power supplies, to connect to the system. Thus, providing power to the system when the first power supply is down.
Regarding claim 13, Ingels in view of Lee teaches the switching panel of claim 12.
Ingels in view of Lee 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 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 utilize an inverter for the secondary power supply to allow for DC systems, such as backup battery power supplies, to connect to the system. Thus, 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 1-5 and 8-10 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. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent contains all of the limitations as presented in the current Application.
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 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Patent contain the limitations of claims 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Application, respectively.
Claims 6 and 7 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).
Regarding claim 6, the Patent provides the basis for claim 6, but fails to disclose the secondary power supply includes two or more power sources. However, Saavedra discloses this limitation [see at least Figure 3, (262-1)-(261-N)].
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 utilize a secondary power supply with two or more power sources in order to expand the capacity of the second power supply. Thus, increasing runtime of the system if the first power supply malfunctions.
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 primary power supply and the secondary 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 2014/0327315 by Baba.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the Patent provides the basis for claims 11 and 13, but fails to disclose wherein the secondary 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 utilize an inverter for the secondary power supply to allow for DC systems, such as backup battery power supplies, to connect to the system. Thus, providing power to the system when the first power supply is down.
Conclusion
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