DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 7-11 and 18-22 are 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.
Re claim 7-9, 11, 18-20 and 22, referencing just the limitation “the interlock circuit” is unclear because there are two interlock circuits as claimed in claims 6 and 17 respectively (note: description has interlock circuits as 19 and 49; fig 6).
Re claims 10 and 21, the claims are indefinite for depending on respective indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2018/0373301).
Re claims 1 and 12, the reference discloses an electronic device (i.e. computer system) comprising: a connector comprising a pair of terminals connected to a power source (i.e. inherent features of computer system; connectors electrically connected to power source and to a button to power off); a voltage sensor configured to detect a voltage between the pair of terminals (i.e. pin signal is generated when shut down occurred; mid para 12); a communication device (i.e. power interface APCI) configured to communicate with an external control device 102 through a network (para 13); and a controller 202 configured to determine whether the connector is separated from the power source based on a voltage variation between the pair of terminals (i.e. fig 3, boxes 304, 306), to control the communication device to request the external control device to cut off power of the power source when the connector is separated from the power source (fig 3, box 306), and to perform self-discharge (fig 3, box 308). Claim 12 is method steps performing the structure of claim 1.
Re claims 6 and 17, the reference discloses interlock circuits on either side of the power source circuit and the device circuit to close and open the circuit when the connector is separated from the power source (i.e. button to disengage the connecting circuits from the battery and the device) (mid para 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-5, 7-11, 13-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2018/0373301).
Re claims 2 and 13, the reference does not disclose the preset time is greater than a preset value in determining separation of the connector from the power source. It only mentioned using a timer_555_IC for transforming the pin signal when shutdown occurred (para 13). It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any appropriate preset time value to ensure proper disconnect occurred since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 3 and 14, the reference does not disclose the preset value decreases as the operation of the device increases. Official notice is taken of the fact that having the controller to cut off power in lesser amount of time (i.e. decreasing preset value) during sensing the disconnection of the terminals (operation of device increases) would prevent damage to the device. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have ensure the preset value decreases as the operating intensity of the device increases to ensure proper shutdown occurred before the discharging process to begin.
Re claims 4 and 15, the reference does not disclose the change rate is to be kept within a preset range as claimed. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the change rate is kept within a preset ranged as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 5 and 16, the reference does not disclose the change rate to be maintained within a preset range by determining the change rate to be set by a number of times at a preset time interval. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the change rate within the preset time interval to ensure the preset range is maintained since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 7 and 18, the reference does not disclose the interlock circuit is opened at a preset time interval. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the interlock circuit at the claimed preset open intervals since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 8, 9, 19 and 20, the reference does not disclose the interlock circuit is opened at a preset first number of times and at a present second number of times when it is determined the connector is separated from the power source and the voltage variation. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have interlock circuit opened at a preset number of times as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 10 and 21, the reference does not disclose the preset second number of times is greater than the preset first number of times. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have assigned the second preset number of times greater than the first preset number of times since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 11 and 22, the reference further discloses the controller performs self- discharge in response to the opening of the interlock circuit and identification of the voltage variation between the pair of terminals (fig 3, boxes 304, 306), and controls the communication device to request the external control device to cut off the power of the power source (fig 3, box 306) after controlling to perform self-discharge (fig 3, box 308).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights