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 .
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1, claims “A stored program interpreter for implementing time-dependent behavior of controlled loads, comprising: an input for receiving a user selection… an output for selectively controlling an electronic switch…”. It is unclear to the examiner what “an input for receiving” and “an output for selectively controlling” is. These limitations are claimed as part of “A stored program” and are therefore software, however no memory or processor is claimed to store or execute said software. Currently these limitations are unclear.
Claim 1, claims “..an input for receiving a user selection for controlling a load device;
an output for selectively controlling an electronic switch associated with the load device to allow selective activation or deactivation of the load device;”
As claimed it is unclear to the examiner what the “user selection for controlling a load device” is. The claim later states “selectively controlling an electronic switch associated with the load device to allow selective activation or deactivating of the load device”, however there is nothing linking the “selectively controlling” limitation to a “user selection for controlling”. As claimed, they seem to be separate entities and the user selection is never used. The examiner is unsure how these steps are performed.
Claim 1 further claims, “determine if a Program Run Flag is True;
executing the selected activation or deactivation of the switch;”
This step is unclear to the examiner. A stated above “an input for receiving a user selection for controlling a load device;” and “an output for selectively controlling an electronic switch associated with the load device to allow selective activation or deactivation of the load device;” are claimed, however a selection activation is never made and there is no relation is said claim for the above “output” limitation being used for “executing the selected activation or deactivation of the switch”. It is unclear to the examiner how this decision of activation or deactivation is made. As claimed the limitation is arbitrarily selecting one or the other and is currently unclear.
Claim 1 further claims, “determine any amount of wait time to be performed”, this limitation is also unclear to the examiner. The wait time never seems to be used and it is currently unclear what the wait time is being performed for.
Lastly claim 1 claims, “determine a number of repeat sequences to be performed; and
execute the specified number of repeat sequences.”. It is unclear to the examiner what these repeat sequences are. The examiner believes the that the repeat sequence is the sequence of “determining if a Program Run Flag is True”, “executing the selected activation or deactivation of the switch” and “determining any amount of wait time”, however nothing is the claim limitation state these steps are a sequence and that these steps are the “sequence to be performed”. As claimed the “repeat sequence” could be anything. Therefore, currently as claimed the “repeat sequence” is unclear.
For the reasons stated above claim 1 is being rejected for being unclear.
Claims 2-8 a dependent on rejected claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-16 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.
Claim 9 claims, “A stored program interpreter for implementing time-dependent behavior of controlled loads, comprising:
an input for receiving a user selection for controlling a load device;
an output for selectively controlling an electronic switch associated with the load device to allow selective activation or deactivation of the load device;”. It is unclear to the examiner what “an input for receiving” and “an output for selectively controlling” is. These limitations are claimed as part of “A stored program” and are therefore software, however no memory or processor is claimed to store or execute said software. Currently these limitations are unclear.
Claim 9, further claims “
an input for receiving a user selection for controlling a load device;
an output for selectively controlling an electronic switch associated with the load device to allow selective activation or deactivation of the load device;”
As claimed it is unclear to the examiner what the “user selection for controlling a load device” is. The claim later states “selectively controlling an electronic switch associated with the load device to allow selective activation or deactivating of the load device”, however there is nothing linking the “selectively controlling” limitation to a “user selection for controlling”. As claimed, they seem to be separate entities and the user selection is never used. The examiner is unsure how these steps are performed.
Claim 9 further claims, “determine whether a Program Run Flag is True, and if the Program Run Flag is True, a determination is made as to whether a Wait Counter is nonzero, otherwise a further check is made if the program Run Flag is True;”
The limitation state “if the program run flag is true, a determination is made as to whether a wait counter is nonzero, otherwise a further check is made if the program Run Flag is True”. The limitation “otherwise a further check is made if the program Run Flag is True” is unclear. If the program Run flag is true one determination is made but the otherwise a limitation that performs a further check is also performed if the program Run Flag is True. The use of the term “otherwise” would make one think the further check is made if the program Run Flag is False, however as claimed both the “a determination is made as to whether a wait counter is nonzero” and “a further check is made” are both performed if the Program Run Flag is True. Therefore, currently the limitation is unclear.
Claim 9, further claims, “If the Wait Counter is determined to be nonzero, then the Wait Counter is decremented one or more times, each time followed by a further check to determine if the Wait Counter is nonzero;”
Therefore, the Wait Counter is decremented and a further check is performed until the Wait counter is nonzero.
Next claim 9 performs, “If the Wait Counter is not nonzero, then a check is made to see if the Program Counter is out of bounds, and if it is, then the program is stopped by setting a Run Flag to False, otherwise a Loop Count is incremented and a check is made to see if the Loop Count indicates an infinite loop which then causes the Run Flag to be set to false;”. Which is stating if the Wait Counter is zero, a check is made and the program is stopped. However, nowhere in the claim is the programming started or running. A Run Flag is set to true but the claim never states that the program is currently running. Therefore, currently as claimed the “the program is stopped by setting a Run Flag to False” step is unclear. This limitation further states, “otherwise a Loop Count is incremented and a check is made to see if the Loop Count indicates an infinite loop which then causes the Run Flag to be set to false.”. It is unclear to the examiner how this limitation would occur since, if the Wait Counter is nonzero in the above steps it would be made zero if the Run Flag was True. The only way for this limitation to occur is if the Run Flag was originally false and the Wait counter was not nonzero, then the Run Flag would not need to be changed to false since it is already false. Therefore, the limitation is currently unclear.
Lastly claim 9 claims, “a next instruction is fetched from program storage…” and “an ON command which retrieves a next program memory element specifying the switch to be tuned ON. It is unclear to the examiner what “a next instruction” is and what “a next program memory element is”. It is also unclear to the examiner if the “switch” being turned on is the electronic switch being activated.
For these reasons above the limitations of claim 9 are unclear to the examiner.
Claims 10-16 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 9.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner believes it should be “the electronic switch”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the coordinated set of elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner believes it should be “the electronic switch”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner believes it should be “the electronic switch”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coordinated set of elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner believes it should be “the electronic switch”
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the Program Counter”, “the instruction” and “the switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these claim limitations. The examiner believes “the instruction” should be “the next instruction” and “the switch” should be “the electronic switch”.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the instruction”, “the switch number”, “the specified switch” and “the switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner believes “the instruction” should be “the next instruction” and “the switch” should be “the electronic switch”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the switch” and “the specified switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner believes “the switch” should be “the electronic switch”.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “determine if a Program Run Flag is True”, “executing the selected activation or deactivation of the switch”, “determine any amount of wait time to be performed”, “determine a number of repeat sequences to be performed” and “execute the specified the number of repeat sequences”. The limitations of “determine”, “executing”, “determine”, “determine” and “execute” as drafted are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The executing step is just activating or deactivating a switch and the other execute is doing nothing more than repeating an unspecified sequence. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “an input for receiving a user selection” and “an output for selectively controlling and electronic device”. The additional elements are insignificant pre solution activities, they are recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the limitations “a processor and memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor and memory” amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, for the limitation of “an input for receiving” and “an output for selectively controlling and electronic device” are identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (2106.05(d)). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and the well-understood, routine, conventional activities do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2, claims “…determining if the electronic switch to be activated or deactivated is an element of a coordinated set of elements…” and “executing the selected activation or deactivation for all elements…”. The steps of “determining” and “executing” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind.
Claim 3, claims “activating a program breaker…”. The step of “activating” is an additional limitation of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitation prevents this limitation from being performed in the mind.
Claim 4, claims “activating the switch for a predetermine time and deactivating the switch for a predetermined off time”. The limitation of “activating” and “deactivating” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind.
Claim 5, further defines the “execute the specified number of repeat sequences” in claim 1. The “execute” limitation is an additional limitation of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitation prevents it from being performed in the mind. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 6, claims “…deactivation of the switch based on receiving an off command”. The step of “deactivating” is an additional limitation of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitation prevents this limitation from being performed in the mind.
Claim 7, claims “selectively activating and deactivating each element…”. The limitation of “activating” and “deactivating” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind.
Claim 8, further defines the activation and deactivation steps of claim 1. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “determine if a Program Run Flag is True”, “determination is made as to whether a Wait Counter is nonzero”, “Wait counter is decremented one or more times”, “further check to determine if the Wait Counter is nonzero”, “check is made to see if the program counter is out of bounds”, “program is stopped by setting a Run Flag to False”, “a check is made to see if the Loop Count indicates an infinite loop…”, “Run Flag to be set to false”, “determined to be a NOP”, “program counter incremented” and “determined if the instruction is an ON command…”. The limitations of “determine”, “determination”, “decremented”, “check”, “check”, “setting”, “check”, “set”, “determined”, “incremented” and “determined” as drafted are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “an input for receiving a user selection”, “an output for selectively controlling and electronic device, “a next instruction is fetched from program storage”, and “retrieves next program memory element”. The additional elements are insignificant pre solution activities, they are recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the limitations “a processor and memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor and memory” amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, for the limitation of “an input for receiving” and “an output for selectively controlling and electronic device” are identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2106.05(d)) and for the limitations “a next instruction is fetched from program storage” and “retrieves next program memory element” the courts have identified mere data gathering as a well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Se MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and the well-understood, routine, conventional activities do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10, claims “…determine that the instruction is not an ON command, and then further determine whether the instructions is an OFF command” and “a determination is made as to whether the specified switch is an element of the coordinated set”, and “the switch is turned off and the Program Counter incremented”. The steps of “determine”, “determine”, “determination”, “turned off” and “incremented” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind. Regarding the limitation “a next program memory element is retrieved”, the courts have identified mere data gathering is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 11, claims “determine whether the switch is an element of a coordinated set” and “then the specified switch is turned ON and the Program Counter is incremented”. The limitations of “determine”, “turned ON”, and “incremented” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind.
Claim 12, claims “determine that the instruction was not an ON command…” and “determine whether the instruction is a WAIT command”. The “determine” limitations are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 13, claims “execute the wait time until it reaches zero” and “run flag is set to false”. The limitations of “execute” and “set” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 14, claims “determine whether the instruction is a Repeat command”, “determine if a Loop Flag Is True”, “Loop Count is decremented”, and “Program Counter is incremented”. These steps of “determine”, “determine”, “decremented” and “incremented” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 15, claims “determine that the Loop Flag is False” and “Program Counter is reset to Program Start”. The steps of “determine” and “reset” are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 16, claims “determine that the instruction is not a Repeat instruction”, “determine whether the instruction is an END instruction” and “Run flag is set to False”. The limitation of “determine”, “determine” and “set” are additional limitations of the abstract ideal “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed limitations prevent these limitations from being performed in the mind. The additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Witte et al. (US 2021/0371063 A1), teaches device controllers configured to control switches in a peripheral device. The device’s controller can be programmed to turn the peripheral device ON or OFF in response to a sensed condition (0036).
Chand et al. (US 2007/0073426 A1), teaches the programming g of a programmable logic controller (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A GOORAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/MARK A GOORAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199