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 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the first sensors or second sensors include a plurality of different sensing principles. However, the parent claim 2 does not require plural sensors or both first and second sensors. Accordingly, it is unclear if more than one sensor is required by claim 7.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefenhofer (US 20160294188) in view of Swanson (US 5,293,115) in view of Lathrop et al. (US 7,683,603).
With respect to claim 1 Stiefenhofer a meter socket adapter (MSA see Fig. 1: see 10, paragraph 0013) for connecting a battery energy storage system (see 450 paragraph 0021, 41) to a household microgrid (see connection to panel 40) through a meter combo load center (see Fig. 1/3), comprising: a first side for receiving an electricity meter (see 20 and meter side 100); a second side (see panel side 200) opposite the first side (seen best in Fig. 1 and 2), wherein the second side is arranged to be inserted (see 220/120) in a meter socket disposed (see Fig. 1 and 3) at the meter combo load center, and the plurality of first conductors is exposed on the first side after the electricity meter is removed (see meter blades) from the MSA, and the plurality of second conductors is exposed after the MSA is removed from the meter socket (panel side blades).
Stiefenhofer teaches the removal at the MSA opens the connection (paragraph 0038-39) and further suggests a switch 300 (paragraph 39-43 see activation during grid below level) may be placed outside of the enclosure however does not determining insertion or removal of the electricity meter and insertion or removal of the MSA, respectively, wherein after it is detected the electricity meter is removed from the MSA de-energizing conductors.
Swanson teaches the known use of detection circuit (col. 2 lines 40-55) for determining a change (see multiple embodiments optical, voltage, plug detection, Fig. 2-6) for removal. Swanson teaches means to detect removal (col. 2 line 50), however does not teach the de-engerization of the conductors as a result. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stiefenhofer to include the detection of the removal of the meter and MSA for the benefit of preventing and monitoring of tampering and incorrect installation (see col. 6 lines 5-25).
Lathrop similarly teaches a meter detection circuit (see col. 1 lines 55-65) for detecting the presence and absence of the meter. Lathrop further teaches the know use of controlling a plurality of conductors (conductors carrying power to loads/2nd power source) wherein after it is detected the electricity meter is removed (col. 4 lines 45-60) from the MSA, a plurality of first conductors on the first side is de-energized (see disconnect device from alternative source), after it is detected the MSA is removed from the meter socket, a plurality of second conductors at the meter socket is de-energized (see signal 38 to energize or de-energize automatic disconnect 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the disconnection or de-energized conductor of Lathrop to the Stiefenhofer interface for the benefit of isolating the disconnected the sources to increase safety.
With respect to claim 2 Stiefenhofer teaches one first sensors (250) disposed on the first side to detect insertion or removal of the electricity meter.
With respect to claim 3 Stiefenhofer teaches the first sensors however does not teach a contact switch, and the contact switch is used to ascertain a state of being compressed for detecting the predetermined change. Swanson teaches a contact switch (Fig. 3), and the contact switch is used to ascertain a state of being compressed for detecting the predetermined change. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stiefenhofer to include the known use of a contact switch as a known alternative of detection to the Stiefenhofer system to detection of the removal of the meter and MSA for the benefit of preventing and monitoring of tampering and incorrect installation (see col. 6 lines 5-25).
With respect to claim 4 Stiefenhofer teaches the first sensor however does not teach an optical sensor, and the optical sensor is used to sense ambient light for detecting the predetermined change. Swanson teaches an optical sensor, and the optical sensor (see Fig. 1) is used to sense ambient light for detecting the predetermined change. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stiefenhofer to include the known use of an optical switch as a known alternative of detection to the Stiefenhofer system to detection of the removal of the meter and MSA for the benefit of preventing and monitoring of tampering and incorrect installation (see col. 6 lines 5-25).
With respect to claim 5 Stiefenhofer as modified above teaches the removal determination. Swanson teaches the change in orientation (col. 4 lines 40-45) may be detected rather than complete removal detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stiefenhofer to include the detection before complete exposure for the benefit of detecting small changes in orientation consistent with tampering or mis-installation.
With respect to claim 6 Stiefenhofer as modified above teaches the known use of a sensor however does not teach the use of a second sensor. It is well known to include duplicate switching elements for increased redundancy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stiefenhofer to include the use of a second switch for the benefit of increased reliability.
With respect to claim 7 Stiefenhofer as modified above teaches the first sensor however does the principles of different switches. Swanson teaches various principles of controlling and sensing the meter (see Fig. 2 – 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stiefenhofer to try the different principles seen in Swanson for the benefit of preventing and monitoring of tampering and incorrect installation (see col. 6 lines 5-25).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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