US 11967857

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11967857:

Title: Power source load control

Assignee: PSLC LLC

Inventors: J. Carl Cooper

Filing Date: November 18, 2020

Issue Date: April 23, 2024

Abstract:
A method is disclosed for controlling a load on a power source. This involves knowing parameters of the power source, sensing its output power, and calculating available power. Parameters of a desired load are also known, including its priority. The method determines if the load can be supported by the available power and connects it if sufficient power exists. The system continuously compares available power to required load and connects/disconnects loads based on changing conditions and priorities. This prevents overloading and can also optimize power source efficiency. The invention can be used with various power sources like generators, solar panels, and the power grid.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for managing power from a source (like a generator or the power grid) to multiple devices (loads). The method involves knowing the limits of the power source and the power requirements of each device, including its importance (priority). It measures the actual power being used and calculates how much power is still available. Before connecting a new device, the system checks if there's enough available power for it. If there is, and it's a priority, the device is connected. This process continuously monitors the power source and connected devices, turning devices on or off as needed to prevent the power source from being overloaded and to maintain its efficient operation.
• Independent Claim 11: This claim outlines a power management system that includes a power source (which could be a backup generator, solar panels, or the grid) and several devices (loads). It has a transfer switch to choose which power source to use and a control unit (processor circuit). The system uses sensors to monitor the power source's output and the individual loads. It stores information about the power source's capabilities, load characteristics, and load priorities. The control unit makes decisions to connect or disconnect loads based on available power and priorities, ensuring the power source is not overloaded and operates efficiently.
• Independent Claim 17: This claim is directed to a load control system for managing a load (device) connected to a power source. The system includes a control unit that knows the power source's capabilities and the load's power requirements and priority. It also features a load switch or a load limit device that can connect/disconnect the load or control the amount of power it draws. The control unit receives real-time information about the power source's output and the load's consumption. It uses this information to determine if connecting the load would cause an overload or exceed specific operational limits, and it controls the load switch or limit device accordingly to prevent such conditions.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
The patent document for US11967857 explicitly mentions several related litigation events in 2026:

• PTAB case IPR2026-00023 filed (Not Instituted - Procedural).
• PTAB case IPR2026-00024 filed (Not Instituted - Procedural).
• PTAB case IPR2026-00022 filed (Not Instituted - Procedural).
• A US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270).

While the general search for CAFC 2026 dockets showed active patent litigation and PTAB appeals at the Federal Circuit, direct docket entries specifically for these IPRs (IPR2026-00023, IPR2026-00024, IPR2026-00022) or the Wisconsin Eastern District Court case related to US11967857 were not found in the provided search snippets. However, the existence of PTAB cases in 2026 indicates potential or ongoing review by the Federal Circuit if those PTAB decisions were to be appealed.

Known litigation involving US patent 11967857 includes:

1. US District Court Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01270
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number suggests a 2024 filing.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation (Source: District Court)

2. PTAB Case IPR2026-00023

   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (details not explicitly stated)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Jurisdiction: PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00023
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a 2026 filing.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

3. PTAB Case IPR2026-00024

   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (details not explicitly stated)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Jurisdiction: PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00024
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a 2026 filing.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

4. PTAB Case IPR2026-00022

   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (details not explicitly stated)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Jurisdiction: PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00022
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a 2026 filing.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

Proceedings overview

There are a total of three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11967857, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. All three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) were denied institution on procedural grounds, specifically through a discretionary denial. This means no claims of the patent were challenged on the merits in these proceedings, and all claims remain untested and legally robust against these specific IPR petitions. The patent, therefore, remains in a strong defensive posture from a PTAB perspective.

IPR2026-00022 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent document or accessible through standard searches at this time.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not detailed in the provided information. I was unable to locate specific details of the petition grounds with a high degree of confidence.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06. The denial was procedural and discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not immediately available from the provided context or general search results but is typically based on factors such as ongoing district court litigation (e.g., under NHK Fintiv guidance) or redundant arguments.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage. The claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding, thereby maintaining their patentability in the face of this particular challenge. An IPR-based defense using the grounds raised in this petition would be difficult for Generac or its privies in future assertions.

IPR2026-00023 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent document or accessible through standard searches at this time.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not detailed in the provided information. I was unable to locate specific details of the petition grounds with a high degree of confidence.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06. The denial was procedural and discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not immediately available from the provided context or general search results but is typically based on factors such as ongoing district court litigation (e.g., under NHK Fintiv guidance) or redundant arguments.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage. The claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding, thereby maintaining their patentability in the face of this particular challenge. An IPR-based defense using the grounds raised in this petition would be difficult for Generac or its privies in future assertions.

IPR2026-00024 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• • Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent document or accessible through standard searches at this time.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not detailed in the provided information. I was unable to locate specific details of the petition grounds with a high degree of confidence.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06. The denial was procedural and discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not immediately available from the provided context or general search results but is typically based on factors such as ongoing district court litigation (e.g., under NHK Fintiv guidance) or redundant arguments.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage. The claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding, thereby maintaining their patentability in the face of this particular challenge. An IPR-based defense using the grounds raised in this petition would be difficult for Generac or its privies in future assertions.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 11967857 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits, as all three Inter Partes Review petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. resulted in discretionary denials of institution. Consequently, no claims have been canceled or invalidated through these PTAB proceedings. The patent owner successfully defended against institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to evaluate the patentability of the claims based on the prior art presented in the petitions.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution was denied in all three IPRs, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac Power Systems, Inc. or its privies concerning the specific grounds raised (or that reasonably could have been raised) in these petitions. This is because estoppel typically only attaches when a final written decision on patentability issues in an IPR. However, common law estoppel principles could potentially be argued by the patent owner, though such arguments are less straightforward and fact-dependent than statutory estoppel.

A clear pattern signal is the simultaneous filing of three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, IPR2026-00024) on the same patent (US11967857) by the same petitioner, Generac Power Systems, Inc., all leading to discretionary denials. This could indicate either a strong patent that withstood initial challenges, or that the petitions themselves had procedural deficiencies or were strategically denied due to factors such as parallel district court litigation (as indicated by the mention of a US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270) in the patent summary). The fact that a known defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is cited as a source for the PTAB data suggests a proactive stance by the petitioner or broader industry interest, but Unified Patents itself is not listed as the petitioner.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 11967857, the primary takeaway from these PTAB proceedings is that the patent's claims have not been invalidated. To understand the specific reasons for the discretionary denials and assess potential future challenges, it is recommended to:

• Obtain and thoroughly review the institution decisions for IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024. These decisions will detail the PTAB's reasoning for denying institution, which could be critical for informing any future invalidity strategies. These decisions would be publicly available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal, typically linked from the IPR case page.
• Analyze the grounds presented in the denied petitions. While statutory estoppel may not apply, understanding what prior art was considered (and why it was insufficient to warrant institution, even on a procedural basis) is valuable.
• Given that the initial IPRs were denied, future IPR attempts by Generac or related entities on the same claims would face significant hurdles due to the PTAB's practice of discouraging serial petitions or those deemed duplicative.
• The existence of the US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270) suggests ongoing litigation. The discretionary denials in PTAB may be related to this parallel district court proceeding (e.g., NHK Fintiv denials). Understanding the status and claims asserted in the district court case is crucial for any defense strategy.## Proceedings overview

There are a total of three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11967857, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. All three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) were denied institution on procedural grounds, specifically through a discretionary denial by the Director of the USPTO. This means no claims of the patent were challenged on the merits in these proceedings, and all claims remain untested and legally robust against these specific IPR petitions. The patent, therefore, remains in a strong defensive posture from a PTAB perspective.

IPR2026-00022 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds by the Director of the USPTO, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: The decision to deny institution was made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, after review of discretionary considerations. Specific administrative patent judges are typically not identified for such summary denials at the Director's level.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not publicly available in the provided context or search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06 by the Director of the USPTO pursuant to discretionary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While the specific reasoning for this case is not detailed, it aligns with the Director's policy of centralizing IPR institution decisions and denying petitions for various procedural reasons, which may include factors related to parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or even domestic manufacturing considerations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding. Statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition, as institution was denied.

IPR2026-00023 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds by the Director of the USPTO, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: The decision to deny institution was made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, after review of discretionary considerations. Specific administrative patent judges are typically not identified for such summary denials at the Director's level.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not publicly available in the provided context or search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06 by the Director of the USPTO pursuant to discretionary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While the specific reasoning for this case is not detailed, it aligns with the Director's policy of centralizing IPR institution decisions and denying petitions for various procedural reasons, which may include factors related to parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or even domestic manufacturing considerations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding. Statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition, as institution was denied.

IPR2026-00024 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds by the Director of the USPTO, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: The decision to deny institution was made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, after review of discretionary considerations. Specific administrative patent judges are typically not identified for such summary denials at the Director's level.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not publicly available in the provided context or search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06 by the Director of the USPTO pursuant to discretionary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While the specific reasoning for this case is not detailed, it aligns with the Director's policy of centralizing IPR institution decisions and denying petitions for various procedural reasons, which may include factors related to parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or even domestic manufacturing considerations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding. Statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition, as institution was denied.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 11967857 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits, as all three Inter Partes Review petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. resulted in discretionary denials of institution. Consequently, no claims have been canceled or invalidated through these PTAB proceedings. The patent owner successfully defended against institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to evaluate the patentability of the claims based on the prior art presented in the petitions.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution was denied in all three IPRs, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac Power Systems, Inc. or its privies concerning the specific grounds raised (or that reasonably could have been raised) in these petitions. This is because statutory estoppel typically only attaches when a final written decision on patentability issues in an IPR. However, common law estoppel principles could potentially be argued by the patent owner, though such arguments are less straightforward and fact-dependent than statutory estoppel.

A clear pattern signal is the simultaneous filing of three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, IPR2026-00024) on the same patent (US11967857) by the same petitioner, Generac Power Systems, Inc., all leading to consistent discretionary denials on 2026-03-06. This pattern strongly reflects the USPTO Director's centralized approach to IPR institution during this period, where discretionary denials have surged since late 2025. These denials are often based on factors such as parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or the "domestic industry" factor introduced in March 2026. The patent summary also explicitly mentions a US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270), suggesting ongoing parallel litigation that could have influenced these discretionary denials.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 11967857, the primary takeaway from these PTAB proceedings is that the patent's claims have not been invalidated. To understand the specific reasons for the discretionary denials and assess potential future challenges, it is recommended to:

• Review Institution Decisions: Obtain and thoroughly review the specific institution decisions for IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024 from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. While the provided information indicates a discretionary denial, the detailed reasoning within these decisions is crucial for understanding the PTAB's specific application of its policies (e.g., Fintiv, Sotera, "settled expectations," or domestic industry) to Generac's petitions.
• Analyze Petition Grounds: While not explicitly detailed in the public records, understanding the prior art and invalidity arguments that Generac presented in their petitions can inform future defense strategies.
• Consider Parallel Litigation: The presence of ongoing district court litigation (case 2:24-cv-01270 in Wisconsin Eastern District Court) is a strong indicator that the discretionary denials may have been influenced by PTAB's policies regarding parallel proceedings. It is vital to analyze the claims and arguments in the district court case to understand the broader litigation landscape.
• Evaluate Future PTAB Challenges: Given the consistent discretionary denials under the current Director's policies, any new IPR petitions against this patent would need to carefully address the factors that led to these denials, especially if there is ongoing district court litigation or if the patent falls under "settled expectations" criteria.

Inventors

• J. Carl Cooper: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated, but listed as "Individual" original assignee on the patent. No unusual patterns are noted regarding inventor departure as the inventor is the original assignee.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the patent and confirmed by the assignment record, was J. Carl Cooper (Individual). There is no information to suggest J. Carl Cooper, as an individual, shipped products embodying the claims. His primary line of business would be that of an inventor. His current status is an individual who assigned the patent to PSLC LLC.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-09-25 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-27 — Reel 065586/0394
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: COOPER, JAMES CARL (INDIVIDUAL)
  • Assignee: PSLC LLC
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E. SCHOFIELD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 5957 S. HIGHLAND DRIVE, SUITE C, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter (from inventor to an LLC that subsequently filed litigation).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11967857
    2020 : Filed by J Carl Cooper
    2024 : Issued
    2024 : Assigned to PSLC LLC
    2024 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent was assigned from an individual inventor to "PSLC LLC". There is no readily available information indicating that PSLC LLC manufactures or sells products. Furthermore, a related entity "PSLC-UNIT 2,LLC" in Florida has a principal address that appears residential and a registered agent. This suggests PSLC LLC is a licensing or asserting entity rather than an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While PSLC LLC is actively asserting the patent in litigation against Generac Power Systems, Inc., it does not appear on commonly cited public NPE lists (e.g., Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group) within the provided search context. Its current litigation activity does, however, mark it as an asserter.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent, thus there is no recurrence of a correspondent. The correspondent is ROBERT E. SCHOFIELD, ATTORNEY AT LAW (Reel 065586/0394).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The patent was assigned to PSLC LLC on September 25, 2024 (executed date). An infringement suit (case 2:24-cv-01270, PSLC LLC v. Generac Power Systems Inc.) was filed in the Wisconsin Eastern District Court on October 7, 2024. This means the litigation was filed 12 days after the assignment, well within the 6-month window, indicating a pre-litigation transfer to enable assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that the original assignor (J. Carl Cooper) or any subsequent assignor was in bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information in the provided context to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to PSLC LLC to assert on its behalf. The initial transfer was from an individual inventor.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with PSLC LLC, which is currently asserting the patent, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is supported by two strong signals: a shell-entity transfer to PSLC LLC, an entity with no clear product-shipping business, and a pre-litigation transfer, where the patent was assigned to PSLC LLC just 12 days before an infringement lawsuit was filed against Generac Power Systems, Inc.. This pattern is highly indicative of patent assertion by a non-practicing entity.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US11967857

The provided patent text for US11967857 does not include a "References Cited" section with a comprehensive list of prior art patents. I am also unable to directly interact with the USPTO database's Patent Public Search tool to extract this information, nor did direct Google searches for "US11967857 references cited" yield a parseable list. Therefore, I can only analyze the specific prior art reference explicitly mentioned and described within the provided patent text.

The patent text for US11967857 explicitly mentions one prior art reference:

• U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0134073

Here's the analysis of this reference:

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0134073 to Tesla Motors, Inc.

• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date is 2010/0134073. The filing date is not explicitly stated in the provided text but can be inferred to be prior to the publication date.

• Brief Description: This publication "describes an elaborate manner in which battery charging current, temperature and various other factors are controlled". It also notes that "by controlling charging current, the maximum load drawn from the power grid or generator can be controlled". The publication further details the "Tesla Motors High Power Connector, or HPC," which includes a manually settable maximum current selector switch to limit the current drawn from a 240-volt circuit, for example, limiting a 40 amp circuit to 32 amps.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0134073 potentially anticipates aspects of US11967857 related to controlling the load presented by a battery charger, particularly for electric or hybrid vehicles, to prevent overloading a power source.

  • Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method of controlling a load on a power source by knowing power source parameters, sensing output power, calculating available power, knowing load parameters (including priority), determining if the load can be supported, and connecting it if sufficient power exists. The Tesla publication anticipates the concept of controlling a load (battery charging current) based on various factors (temperature, charge) to manage the maximum load drawn from a power source (grid or generator), which aligns with the broad concept of preventing overload and managing available power. Specifically, the manual current selector on the HPC directly implements a form of "knowing load parameters" (the maximum current draw allowed) and controlling the "amount of power supplied" to the load (the battery charger) to prevent exceeding a "maximum output capability" of the circuit connection, which serves as a "power source" in that context.
  • Independent Claim 11: This claim describes a power management system including a power source, multiple loads, a transfer switch, and a control unit that monitors power, stores parameters, and controls load connection/disconnection to prevent overload and optimize efficiency. The Tesla publication describes a system where battery charging current is controlled based on factors like battery temperature and charge level, implying a monitoring and control system to manage the load on the power source. While it doesn't describe a full "transfer switch" system for multiple diverse loads, it clearly details a control unit managing a specific load (battery charger) in response to sensed conditions to prevent overload, which is a core aspect of Claim 11.
  • Independent Claim 17: This claim describes a load control system for a load connected to a power source, featuring a control unit that knows power source capabilities, load requirements/priority, and a load switch/limit device. The control unit uses real-time information to prevent overload. The Tesla publication directly addresses "control of battery charging current" and the use of a "maximum current selector switch" on the HPC. This switch acts as a load limit device, and the implicit control system (managing charging current based on battery conditions) functions as a control unit aware of both the "power source's capabilities" (circuit capacity) and the "load's power requirements" (battery charging needs), thereby controlling the load to prevent an overload.

  Therefore, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0134073 is highly relevant prior art, particularly regarding the dynamic control and limiting of power drawn by battery charging loads in response to system conditions to prevent overloading.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The analysis requires identifying: 1) the scope and content of the prior art, 2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and 4) any secondary considerations of obviousness.

For US Patent 11967857, the key inventive aspects, as outlined in the independent claims, revolve around a proactive and intelligent power source load control system. This system aims to prevent overloads and optimize efficiency by:

• Knowing power source parameters (e.g., maximum load handling).
• Sensing power source output and calculating available power.
• Knowing load parameters, including priority.
• Proactively determining if a desired load can be supported by available power before connection.
• Connecting or disconnecting loads based on this determination, priorities, and changing conditions.
• Utilizing load switches and/or load limit devices for control.

Identified Prior Art References:

The patent itself discusses two significant prior art examples:

1. Generac Nexus automatic transfer switch with load manager option (FIG. 3): This system is described as a prior art backup power system that starts a generator when grid power fails and transfers the load. It includes:

   • A generator and transfer switch controller (14) responsive to grid power.
   • Load managers (14a), which are contactors, to switch high-current loads on and off.
   • Monitoring of AC power frequency from the generator to detect overloads (e.g., frequency drops below 58 Hz).
   • Reactive load shedding: all low-priority (nonessential) loads are simultaneously disconnected after an overload occurs.
   • Sequential reconnection of loads based on priority, with a delay, and a mechanism to disconnect loads again if an overload recurs (described as "blindly switched on without knowing if it will again cause an overload").

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0134073 (Tesla Motors, Inc.): This publication is incorporated by reference in US11967857 for its prior art teachings regarding battery charging control. It describes:

   • An elaborate manner in which battery charging current, temperature, and various other factors are controlled.
   • The ability to control the maximum load drawn from the power grid or generator by controlling charging current.
   • The Tesla High Power Connector (HPC) with a manual current selector switch that is set at installation to limit the maximum current the charger is allowed to draw "according to the capability of the circuit connection to the supply."

Obviousness Combination and Motivation:

A combination of the Generac Nexus automatic transfer switch with load manager and the teachings from U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0134073 (Tesla Motors) would render the claims of US11967857 obvious to a PHOSITA in the field of power systems and load control.

Motivation to Combine:

The patent itself highlights the critical shortcomings of the Generac system, stating, "Importantly this load shedding takes place after the overload happens." It further notes that "the overload, and possibly damage to the generator or its load, may have already happened by the time the overload is detected." Additionally, the Generac system's reconnection process is criticized as "blindly switched on without knowing if it will again cause an overload." These explicit critiques serve as a strong motivation for a PHOSITA to seek improvements to the Generac system's reactive and inefficient load management. The overarching goal would be to develop a more proactive, predictive, and intelligent load control system that prevents overloads rather than merely reacting to them.

The Tesla reference provides the very tools and concepts needed to address these shortcomings. It teaches the principle of:

• Proactive Load Limitation: The Tesla HPC's manual current selector switch demonstrates a mechanism to limit the maximum current a device can draw based on the supply circuit's capability, set at installation. This is a direct example of preventing an overload before it occurs or before full power is drawn.
• Intelligent Load Control: The Tesla publication describes controlling battery charging current based on various factors like temperature and charge state. This exemplifies dynamic, intelligent adjustment of a load's power demand.

How the Combination Leads to the Invention:

A PHOSITA, starting with the Generac system (which already provides a framework for backup power, transfer switching, and prioritized load management), and motivated to overcome its reactive nature, would look for ways to implement proactive load control.

1. From Reactive to Proactive Overload Prevention: Instead of waiting for the generator's frequency to drop (indicating an overload) before shedding loads, a PHOSITA would integrate the Tesla concept of "controlling the maximum load drawn from the power grid or generator". This would involve modifying the Generac controller (14) to:

   • More precisely "know parameters of the power source" (e.g., maximum wattage or current capability, rather than just implicitly knowing via frequency drop). The Tesla HPC's manual setting "according to the capability of the circuit connection to the supply" teaches this concept.
   • More precisely "sense output power" (beyond just frequency) to "calculate available power" in real-time. This is essential for effective current limiting.
   • Before "blindly switching on" a prioritized load, the controller would "determine if a desired load can be supported by the available power" by comparing the load's known parameters (which Generac already uses for prioritization) against the calculated available power.

2. Implementation of Load Limiting/Modulation: The Generac system uses contactors (load managers 14a) for simple on/off switching. The Tesla patent explicitly teaches "controlling charging current" to "control the maximum load drawn from the power grid or generator". Recognizing that some high-demand loads (like an oven or battery charger) could benefit from reducing power rather than complete disconnection, a PHOSITA would be motivated to replace or augment Generac's on/off contactors with load limit devices (like the patent's "load limit module 43" with "current control circuit 44") that can actively limit the power supplied to a load, as exemplified by the Tesla charger. The patent itself notes, "a nonessential load such as a vehicle battery charger turned off or limited to prevent any overload."

3. Continuous Optimization and Predictive Control: While Generac focuses on preventing damage via reactive shedding, the combination with Tesla's dynamic load control based on various factors (e.g., battery temperature/charge) would naturally lead to a system that continuously compares available power to required load and makes adjustments not only for overload prevention but also for "optimum output for improved efficiency." The patent discusses "monitoring and recording parameters e.g. the operation of various loads" to learn load characteristics, which would enable more sophisticated predictive and optimizing control, building on the basic dynamic control taught by Tesla.

Conclusion:

A PHOSITA, faced with the recognized drawbacks of the reactive load shedding in the Generac system, would find a clear motivation to incorporate the proactive load control and limiting principles taught by the Tesla publication. By combining the Generac system's architecture for backup power and prioritized load management with Tesla's methods for intelligently controlling and limiting the power drawn by specific loads, the PHOSITA would arrive at the proactive, intelligent load control system claimed in US11967857. This combination would directly address the problem of preventing overloads before they occur and provide a more efficient and reliable power management system.