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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 1-7 in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 5 recites “removal of the electricity meter is detected and the plurality of first conductors at the MSA is de-energized before the electricity meter is removed”. The specification recites paragraph (0228) “detect a removal act when the meter or MSA is removed and before they are completely taken out of MSA or meter socket. The first and second contact switches may detect certain changes, which correspond to moments when the meter or MSA is in a removal process.” It is left absent in the disclosure what changes or acts are being detected or how the changes are correlated with a removal process. The claim is left without an enabling disclosure to describe the acts or process which corresponds with detecting a removal process before removal completes.
Claim 5 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 5 is unclear as is unclear the difference between removal and completely removed. Therefore, the claim sets forth an indefinite boundary condition between insertion/removal and completely removed.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220255342) in view of Lathrop et al. (US 7,683,603).
With respect to claim 1 Davis teaches a meter socket adapter (220) for connecting a battery energy storage system (paragraph 0071) to a household microgrid through a meter combo load center, comprising: a first side for receiving an electricity meter (see left side for example Fig. 2 or 4); a second side (right side) opposite the first side, wherein the second side is arranged to be inserted in a meter socket (see connection with socket shown in Fig. 13) disposed at the meter combo load center; and a meter detection circuit (see control 1130) for detecting a wrong installation (paragraph 011) or presence (paragraph 0013) and plurality of first and second conductors (see 1115 and 1111 shown in Fig. 12). Davis does not detail the operation of the conductors during a wrong installation or removal. Lathrop teaches detecting the insertion and removal of the (col. 3 lines 50-60) meter, wherein after it is detected the electricity meter is removed controlling the energization of a conductor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the control of the conductor of Lathrop to the conductors of Davis for the benefit of increasing safety (col. 3 lines 35-45).
With respect to claim 2-3 Davis teaches a first sensors disposed on the first side to detect insertion or removal of the electricity meter or one or more second sensors disposed on the second side to detect insertion or removal of the MSA (col. 1 lines 50-60, plunger).
With respect to claim 4 Davis teaches the sensor however does not teach the sensor is an optical sensor. Optical sensors are a well known means of detecting proximity, 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 modify Davis to try the known use of a optical sensor for the predictable result of accurately/reliably measuring the presence or absence.
With respect to claim 6 Davis 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 Davis to include the use of a second switch for the benefit of increased reliability.
With respect to claim 7 Davis teaches the first sensors are known to include plunger or proximity switch. Davis does not teach the use of both a plunger and proximity switch. It is well known to use more than one switching means to increase reliable detection 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 modify Davis to try different sensing principles for the benefit of increased reliability.
Conclusion
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