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 . The objections and rejections from the Office Action of 10/29/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The “unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption” of Claims 1-6 and 8 is interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f). Corresponding structure is disclosed at least as an electronic current sensor per Page 5 of the instant Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) of a mental activity algorithm for building/referencing a power consumption table for a fluid meter (i.e., checking a table and either using it or adding to it).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the functioning of the underlying fluid meter is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the measurement of power consumption values (the “unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption” and “activating the unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption”) would have been a necessary data gathering step in the implementation of the algorithm. The recited computer components amount to the recitation of the components of a general-purpose computer and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Palmer et al. (US 20230350475 A1)[hereinafter “Palmer”].
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 8, Palmer discloses a method/device (including a corresponding non-transient storage medium on which a computer program product is stored comprising program code instructions) for evaluating the quantity of electrical energy consumed by a communicating object supplied by cell [Paragraph [0010] – “FIG. 4 illustrates a high-level system diagram 400 of a modular test instrument, in which an operating application may manage power, according to an example.”Paragraph [0043] – “Wireless network module 460 may provide a wireless network interface to test instrument by way of communication between antenna 461 and control module 454. Bluetooth module 462 may provide a Bluetooth interface to test instrument by way of communication between antenna 461 and control module 454. According to an example, several wireless options, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other configuration choices, may be supported.”Paragraph [0044] – “According to an example, internal smart battery module 466 includes a single battery, which is field replaceable.”Paragraph [0059] – “FIG. 8 illustrates a flow chart of a method for controlling power management of a test instrument at component-level, according to an example. The method 800 is provided by way of example, as there may be a variety of ways to carry out the method described herein. Although the method 800 is primarily described as being performed by the operating application 112 in FIG. 1 and/or one or more of its modules (e.g., power management module 544 of FIG. 5C), the method 800 may be executed or otherwise performed by one or more processing components of another system or a combination of systems. Each block shown in FIG. 8 may further represent one or more processes, methods, or subroutines, and one or more of the blocks (e.g., the selection process) may include machine readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and executed by a processor or other type of processing circuit to perform one or more operations described herein.”], the communicating object comprising a control unit having electronic circuitry [Paragraph [0051] – “FIG. 6A illustrates diagram 600A of a power system manager, according to an example. A power system manager (also referred to as power management module or power management subsystem) may be used to sequence, trim (servo), margin, supervise, manage faults, provide telemetry, and/or create fault logs. Power management bus commands may support power supply sequencing, precision point-of-load voltage adjustment, and/or margining.”] and a unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption, controlled by the control unit [Paragraph [0051] – “Detecting a voltage from a power source (DC/DC converter 608), the power system manager IC 604 may measure voltage from the power source and sense current of the load 606 and thereby monitor the power consumed by the load from the power source. In some examples, the power system manager IC 604 may also adjust the voltage output level of the power source (DC/DC converter 608). In some examples, a power rail monitor 602 may be installed in the test instrument and be accessible from the instrument processor(s) to monitor power consumption and optionally control voltage levels.”], the communicating object being able to implement a plurality of functionalities [Paragraph [0060] – “At block 802, controllable hardware, software, and FPGA components and subsystems of a test instrument in a particular configuration may be identified. Controllable components refer to components, subsystems, circuits, and the like, which may be turned on or off in different operating modes by a power management application of module.”], the method being performed by the control unit and comprising the steps of:
detecting an activation of a functionality of the communicating object [Paragraph [0060] – “At block 804, controllable component combinations may be identified. For any given operational state some hardware, software, and FPGA components and subsystems may not be needed, and it may make operational sense to turn groups of components off or on at the same time. For example, one or multiple mixers may not be needed for a particular operation mode and may be turned off. If that mixer is associated with an oscillator that only provides input to that mixer, the oscillator may be turned off or on together with the mixer.”],
checking in a table whether an electrical-energy consumption is associated with the functionality activated [Paragraph [0061] – “At block 806, power consumption of identified components and combinations may be determined (e.g., from specifications or actual monitoring) under different operational scenarios. Thus, a ranking of components and combinations may be made with regard to their power consumption, and higher power consuming components and combinations may be prioritized in power management to maximize an efficiency. At block 808, system models may be generated based on the identified and ranked components and combinations. The models may include scenes, which list any number of components and their states (e.g., on or off). Thus, the operating application may not need to manage each component for each scenario individually, but simply make a subroutine call to activate a scene and all components associated with that scene may be moved to the listed states (on or off).”]
demanding an estimation of the quantity of electrical energy consumed by the functionality activated, if an electrical-energy consumption is associated with the functionality activated [Paragraph [0062] – “At block 810, one or more scene tables may be selected for a specific test instrument or system in a particular configuration among a generic library of scenes, which may be applicable to a family of products and/or configurations. At optional block 812, the scenes in the scene table for the particular instrument and configuration may be implemented (executed) and validated by analyzing power consumption levels (along with operational parameters to ensure operation of the instrument is not affected).”In the event that the power consumption is successfully validated, the process proceeds to step 814.], and
demanding a measurement of the quantity of electrical energy consumed by the functionality activated, by activating the unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption [Paragraph [0062] – “validated by analyzing power consumption levels”Paragraph [0051] – “Detecting a voltage from a power source (DC/DC converter 608), the power system manager IC 604 may measure voltage from the power source and sense current of the load 606 and thereby monitor the power consumed by the load from the power source.”], if an electrical-energy consumption is not associated with the functionality activated [Paragraph [0062] – “The optional validation may be an iterative process feeding back to block 808, where the generated models may be adjusted based on the analysis results.”In the event that the power consumption is not successfully validated, the process iterates and step 812 would be performed again.].
Regarding Claim 4, Palmer discloses that, if in the table an electrical-energy consumption is associated with the functionality activated, the method further comprises the steps of: demanding a measurement of the quantity of electrical energy consumed by the functionality activated, checking whether the estimation of the electrical-energy consumption of the functionality activated corresponds to the measurement of the electrical-energy consumption of the functionality activated, modifying in the table the value of the electrical-energy consumption associated with the functionality if the estimation of the electrical-energy consumption of the functionality activated does not correspond to the measurement of the electrical-energy consumption of the functionality activated [Paragraph [0062] – “At block 810, one or more scene tables may be selected for a specific test instrument or system in a particular configuration among a generic library of scenes, which may be applicable to a family of products and/or configurations. At optional block 812, the scenes in the scene table for the particular instrument and configuration may be implemented (executed) and validated by analyzing power consumption levels (along with operational parameters to ensure operation of the instrument is not affected). The optional validation may be an iterative process feeding back to block 808, where the generated models may be adjusted based on the analysis results.”].
Regarding Claim 5, Palmer discloses that, when the measurement of the quantity of electrical energy consumed by a functionality activated is stable over time, the measured value is associated with the functionality activated and is stored in the table [Fig. 8, exiting the iterative loop to step 814 upon successful validation].
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (US 20230350475 A1)[hereinafter “Palmer”] and Laursen et al. (US 20220214202 A1)[hereinafter “Laursen”].
Regarding Claim 2, Palmer fails to disclose that the communicating object is a communicating fluid meter. However, Laursen discloses such a device [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0067]]. It would have been obvious to consider the power consumption of such a device in order to preserve its battery life.
Regarding Claim 3, Palmer fails to disclose that the plurality of functionalities comprises at least one functionality of display on a screen, a functionality of measuring fluid flow rate and a functionality of communication by a radio channel. However, Laursen discloses such a device having such functionalities [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0067]]. It would have been obvious to consider the power consumption of such a device in order to preserve its battery life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
316
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding claim objections and claim interpretation are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
265
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the measurement of power consumption values (the “unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption” and “activating the unit for measuring an electrical-energy consumption”) would have been a necessary data gathering step in the implementation of the algorithm. The recited computer components amount to the recitation of the components of a general-purpose computer and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
172
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim(s) recite(s) of a mental activity algorithm for building/referencing a power consumption table for a fluid meter (i.e., checking a table and either using it or adding to it). Estimating the quantity of electrical energy consumed (not that Claim 1 recites doing so as Claim 1 merely recites “demanding” the estimation) is a step in the algorithm itself and an extension of the abstract idea. Performing the algorithm would use power, not extend battery lifespan; also, Claim 1 does not explicitly recite a battery (although “cell” would be read on by a battery).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
408
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
125
782
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite the referred-to modes nor the “switch” between them.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
82
765
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
458
792
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
645
779
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
457
779
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 1. strict/specific binary switching logic or 2. checking for the presence/absence of a value in a table) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190349858 A1 – SELECTING POWER CONSUMPTION MODES OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES
US 20230344704 A1 – OPTIMIZING POWER CONSUMPTION OF M-IOT DEVICES
US 20160018470 A1 – METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CALCULATING ACCURATE BATTERY PERCENTAGE USAGE IN WIRELESS FIELD DEVICES
US 20100235121 A1 – METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MODELING, SIMULATING, ESTIMATING AND CONTROLLING POWER CONSUMPTION IN BATTERY-OPERATED DEVICES
US 20220261059 A1 – System And Method For Automated Adaptive Operation To Achieve Optimized Power Management On Internet Of Things Devices
US 20230082416 A1 – METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR RADIO FREQUENCY POWER MODE SELECTION
US 6952782 B2 – System And Method For Converging Current System Performance And Power Levels To Levels Stored In A Table Using A Successive Approximation Algorithm
US 6696843 B1 – Device And Method For Ultrasonic Measurement Of A Fluid Flow Rate Comprising A Sigma-delta Band Pass Analog-to-digital Converter
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857