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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks (at 9) contend the rigid sequence of Gregory does not teach polling of each outlet and adding outlets to a queue as claimed. In response, Gregory teaches checking (col. 9 lines 5-15) the current draw at the outlets. The operation of checking is similar to the polling of claim 1. Gregory further teaches adding outlets to the queue as Gregory adds outlets to a create a sequence. Here the sequence of Gregory is similar the claimed queue. The adding of outlets is based on the current as the current level cannot be exceeded by an outlet or during the sequence and is configurable by the user (col. 3 lines 50-60). Gregory teaches current draw is utilized in evaluating sequencing (col. 5 line 40). The adding of outlets is similarly based on a user set threshold, in this case the user may set the sequence and on time of each device across a number of devices (col. 3 lines 40-50) and the current threshold for changing sequence. Therefore, Gregory teaches each of the alleged deficiencies. Accordingly, the rejections have been made FINAL.
It is noted the polling operation in the disclosure is a particular operation (paragraph 0096), the operation disclosed is polling for about 1 second in a sequential order. It is not alleged this is the same as the prior art operation, it is not, rather here it is important to note this particular polling operation is not read into or recited in the claims. In the adding of the outlets the disclosure details (paragraph 0069-71) the operation of comparing a sum of the stored current value for the outlet and the total current draw with the user set current threshold. In contrast, the claims present a broad “based on” relationship which does not limit the claim to the operation and algorithm disclosed. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is suggested Applicant distinguish the claims from the cited prior art by including in the claims the disclosed differences.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory, II (US 12,476,472) in view of Sorenson (US 11,271,399).
With respect to claims 1, 9, 11 and 19 Gregory teaches a power distribution unit comprising (Fig. 1-2 and 4): a plurality of outlets (108); and a controller (102) configured to: poll the plurality of outlets to determine a polled electrical load of each outlet (col. 9 lines 10-20), add one or more outlets (col. 8 lines 10-25) of the plurality of outlets to a queue (see sequence) based on a comparison of the polled electrical loads and a user set threshold (col. 3 lines 40-50), connect the queued outlets (run programmed sequence) to a power input. Gregory however does not teach monitoring a total electrical load of the power distribution unit, and disconnect, in response to determining that the total electrical load exceeds the user set threshold, one or more outlets of the plurality of outlets from the power input. Sorenson teaches (col. 10 lines 5-25 for example) monitoring a total electrical load of the power distribution unit, and disconnect, in response to determining that the total electrical load exceeds the user set threshold, one or more outlets of the plurality of outlets from the power input (col. 2 lines 15-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Gregory to include the known use of disconnecting a load for the benefit of protecting the system (col. 4 lines 35-40).
With respect to claims 2 and 12 Gregory teaches to poll the plurality of outlets, the controller is configured to: connect a first pair of outlets (first group of outlets in sequence) of the plurality of outlets to the power input; and disconnect the first pair of outlets (see moving to next group of outlets in the sequence, col. 8 lines 50-65) of the plurality of outlets from the power input.
With respect to claims 3 and 13 Gregory teaches (col. 4 lines 20-50) the ordering the charging sequence by programming the routine however does not teach the assigning a priority. Sorenson teaches (col. 6 lines 40-60) the assigning of priority values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Gregory to use a priority ordering of the sequencing for the benefit of ensuring critical loads are charged first to maintain critical operations.
With respect to claims 4 and 14 Gregory teaches the power distribution unit however does not teach the determining whether connecting the first outlet to the power input will cause the total electrical load of the power distribution unit to exceed the user set threshold; and add, in response to determining that connecting the first outlet to the power input will not cause the total electrical load of the power distribution unit to exceed the user set threshold, the first outlet to the queue. Sorenson teaches (col. 12 lines 45-55) the using expected power usage or current consumption levels for predicting power draw by the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the expected power levels of Sorenson to unit of Gregory for the benefit of preventing a adding a load to a sequence exceeding the threshold and protecting the system from damage.
With respect to claims 6 and 16 Gregory teaches the power distribution however does no teach the disconnection in reverse order. Sorenson teaches the controller is configured to disconnect outlets from the power input in reverse priority order in response to determining that the total electrical load exceeds the user set threshold (col. 10 lines 20-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Gregory to include the disconnecting in reverse priority order to maintain supply to critical operations.
With respect to claims 7 and 17 Gregory teaches the power distribution unit however does not teach the determining whether connecting the first outlet to the power input will cause the total electrical load of the power distribution unit to exceed the user set threshold; and add, in response to determining that connecting the first outlet to the power input will not cause the total electrical load of the power distribution unit to exceed the user set threshold, the first outlet to the queue. Gregory further teaches a timer (see configure time or schedule col. 2 lines 45-60); and connect, in response to the timer elapsing, the additional outlets to the power input. Sorenson teaches (col. 12 lines 45-55) the using expected power usage or current consumption levels for predicting power draw by the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the expected power levels of Sorenson to unit of Gregory for the benefit of preventing a adding a load to a sequence exceeding the threshold and protecting the system from damage.
With respect to claims 8 and 18 Gregory teaches a plurality of switches (col. 5 line 8), each switch of the plurality of switches being associated with a respective outlet of the plurality of outlets (108); a plurality of outlet sensors (204), each outlet sensor of the plurality of sensors being associated (see Fig. 2) with a respective outlet of the plurality of outlets and configured to sense an electrical load (current draw) of the respective outlet; and wherein the controller is configured to: actuate each switch (see connect each sequence group to power) of the plurality of switches to connect or disconnect the respective outlet, determine an electrical load of each outlet by monitoring a respective outlet sensor. Gregory teaches the use of GFCI setting the maximum current level however Gregory as modified above however does not teach the connection of a main sensor in sensing the total electrical current. It is well known to use main sensor to sense total current of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Gregory to include the known use of a main sensor for the benefit of rapid determination of an overcurrent condition.
With respect to claims 10 and 20 Gregory teaches the polled values are current values. Sorenson teaches electrical loads and the total electrical load are power values (see power draw levels, col. 3 lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Gregory to use the known alternative of power levels for protecting the system from damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 5 and 15 Gregory as modified above teaches power distribution unit however does not teach the further limitation each outlet of the plurality of outlets is assigned a priority; and to add one or more outlets of the plurality of outlets to the queue, the controller is configured to: select a second outlet of the plurality of outlets, the second outlet having a lower priority than the first outlet, determine whether connecting the second outlet and any queued outlets to the power input will cause the total electrical load of the power distribution unit to exceed the user set threshold; and add, in response to determining that connecting the second outlet and any queued outlets to the power input will not cause the total electrical load of the power distribution unit to exceed the user set threshold, the second outlet to the queue. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
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 Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights