Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 19/204,345

METER SOCKET ADAPTER, ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND HOUSEHOLD MICROGRID

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 09, 2025
Priority
May 01, 2024 — provisional 63/641,139 +3 more
Examiner
FIN, MICHAEL RUTLAND
Art Unit
2836
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Franklinwh Energy Storage Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
516 granted / 644 resolved
+12.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
664
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 644 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12695284
HIGH-SPEED FAULT ISOLATION FOR POWER SOURCES OF A VEHICLE
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686485
COMPOSITE FUSELAGE BARREL WITH IMPROVED EME PROTECTION AND METHOD OF MAKING THEREOF
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12683424
CHARGER FOR A BATTERY PACK, CHARGING SYSTEM AND METHOD OF CHARGING
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676513
POWER TRANSFER DISABLEMENT SWITCH IN A WIRELESS POWER RECEPTION APPARATUS
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12676470
OVER VOLTAGE PROTECTION FOR A WIRELESS POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+13.1%)
2y 4m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 644 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month