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 .
Response to applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s main argument is “In Suttelin and Villar the buffer is just charging a capacitor and the supply power and any control is provided after the charged capacitor in circuit. There is no suggestions of only buffering the power that is left over after other loads connected to the power supply have been powered/operated.”
It appears the applicant’s argument state that Sutterlin et al. and Villar et al.do not teach the limitations:
“wherein the input current limiter and control is configured to determine the amount of the current of the power supply needed to supply the other loads and to use the remaining amount of the current of the power supply to charge the buffer means.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner used Moller et al.as a reference to teach the limitations. Please refer to the Fig. 1 and explanation with citations from Moller et al. below:
PNG
media_image1.png
528
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moller et al. teach of a power control system where power is provided to a load as well as to an alternate power supply (battery) charging unit (Abstract, Pars. 9-12). Moller et al further teach that when the battery charge level is below a predetermined lower level, the current supplied from the power sourcing device is to both the load and the battery (Paras. 21, 34). It is understood that to provide current to the load and the battery charging unit, that the system has determined the amount of current needed for those devices (Moller et al. actually teach this when it states that it knows when the battery is below a predetermined lower level, as well as having a current monitor to monitor the current in the load, as is taught in Pars. 9-12, 19, 21). Also please see last lines of para 34 “Once the power requirements of the load devices 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D have reduced, and the power supplied by the power sourcing equipment 20 is greater than the requirements of the load devices, the microprocessor 34 will arrange for the excess power to be supplied to the battery charge unit 40 to charge the battery 38”.
Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objection
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, the term “the” should be inserted before “load”.
In line 3, the term “of” should be deleted.
The claim ends with a colon. It is believed that “the method comprising:” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, and 8-15 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, line 6 recites the limitation “the buffer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the buffer means” is assumed.
Dependent claims inherit the same issue.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “buffer means connected to receive power from the power supply and to buffer that power until a predetermined level of buffered power is available at which time the system enables activation of a load to function powered by the buffered power” in claim 1; “buffer means is converted to a mid-voltage” in claim 4;” buffer means comprises capacitors” in claim 5; “means for activation and deactivation of the load” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutterlin et al. (US 5703766), and in view of Villar et al. (US 20170244268), and further in view of Moller (US 2011/0133551).
As per Claim 1 Sutterlin et al. teach
A power control system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a power supply (Fig.1 #16); buffer means (Fig. 1#15) connected to a receive power from the power supply and to buffer the power until a predetermined level of buffered power is available at which time the system enable activation of the load (Fig.1, #12) to function powered by the buffered power (Sutterlin teaches when the capacitor potential reaches a certain limit (Vmin), the transmitter inhibits the power transmission. Here, the amount higher than the Vmin is the first predetermined level. (Please see Sutterlin et al. column 1, lines 34-45); and
PNG
media_image2.png
507
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
monitor the current of the power supply and to charge the buffer means using that current.
Sutterlin specifically teaches that the power supply can use 40 mA to recharge the capacitor. At a minimum, because it realizes that it can use 40 mA from the power supply to recharge the capacitor, it is monitoring the current. (Please see Sutterlin column 4, line 12-21).
However, Sutterlin et al. do not teach
an input current limiter and control connected between the power supply and the buffer and between the power supply and other loads,
wherein the input current limiter and control is configured to determine the amount of the current of the power supply needed to supply other loads and to use the remaining amount of the current of the power supply to charge the buffer means.
In the same field of endeavor, Villar et al. teach a current limiter (Villar teaches a power management system that includes power-controller, a power source and energy buffer that can be charged. (Please see Villar, para 43). Villar also teaches limiting the current drawn from the power supply, via the power-controller, when it reaches to its maximum capacity. (Please see Villar, para 52).
Villar et al. also teach an input current limiter and control connected between the power supply and the buffer and between the power supply and other loads (Fig. 2A, para 52).
Villar et al. teach in Fig. 2A and para 52 that a power controller 214 (acts as current limiter) is connected between the primary power source 202(power supply) and the energy buffer 208. The power controller 214(current limiter) is also connected between the primary power sourec202(power supply) and the load 212.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
802
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the above prior arts to include the current limiter and the arrangement between the current limiter and the control of Villar et al. into the system taught by Sutterlin et al. This would have been obvious because both Sutterlin et al. and Villar et al. teach of power management systems that include a power supply and charging a capacitor to provide power to a load, and it would also limit the amount of current (e.g., the 40mA taught by Sutterlin) the power supply would need to use to recharge the capacitor so as to protect it from overload (which is what a current limiter was designed to do).
However, the combination of Sutterlin et al. and Villar et al. do not teach
wherein the input current limiter and control is configured to determine the amount of the current of the power supply needed to supply other loads and to use the remaining amount of the current of the power supply to charge the buffer means.
In the same field of endeavor, Moller et al. also teach
an input current limiter and control connected between the power supply and the buffer and between the power supply and other loads (Moller et al., Fig. 1, para 34).
PNG
media_image4.png
554
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is well understood from the above figure, the input current limiter and control (The current supply monitor 30, current supply limiter 32, and load current monitoring unit 450) are connected between the power supply (power sourcing equipment PSE) and the buffer (combinedly the battery monitoring unit 42, battery 38, battery charge unit 40). The system is supplying power to load device 16 connected to (16A and other devices 16B,16C and 16D).
Moller et al. further teach
wherein the input current limiter and control is configured to determine the amount of the current of the power supply needed to supply other loads and to use the remaining amount of the current of the power supply to charge the buffer means.
PNG
media_image4.png
554
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Moller et al. teach of a power control system where power is provided to a load as well as to an alternate power supply (battery) charging unit (Abstract, Pars. 9-12). Moller further teaches that when the battery charge level is below a predetermined lower level, the current supplied from the power sourcing device is to both the load and the battery (Pars. 21, 34). It is understood that to provide current to the load and the battery charging unit, that the system has determined the amount of current needed for those devices (Moller actually teaches this when it states that it knows when the battery is below a predetermined lower level, as well as having a current monitor to monitor the current in the load, as is taught in Pars. 9-12, 19, 21). Also please see last lines of para 34 “Once the power requirements of the load devices 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D have reduced, and the power supplied by the power sourcing equipment 20 is greater than the requirements of the load devices, the microprocessor 34 will arrange for the excess power to be supplied to the battery charge unit 40 to charge the battery 38”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the teachings of Moller et al. into the system taught by Sutterlin et al. and Villar et al. This would have been obvious because like Sutterlin et al. and Villar et al., Moller et al. also teach of a power control system that includes an alternate powered buffer means. Further, by including a process that can determine the charge level of the powered buffer means, and then adjust the current supplied by a power sourcing device to both the load and the alternate powered buffer means would prevent the alternate powered buffer means from being completely exhausted of power, and as a result, not being able to supply power to the load if the powering source were to become faulty (Moller et al. Paras 4-6).
As per claim 2, Sutterlin et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to disable activation of the load when the buffered power is less than a predetermined level.
Sutterlin teaches once voltage on capacitor 15 drops to low voltage - Vmin, the circuit 11 triggers the OOGAS signal and cause the circuit to senses the situation, and Transceiver 12 goes inactive – here, it shows the disable of activation of the load. When transmission ceases, a collision detection turns on to start recharging the capacitor until it reaches to the first predetermined level which is greater than Vmin and less than Vmax (mid voltage). (Please see Sutterlin col.3, line 63- col.4, line21).
As per claim 3, Sutterlin et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to disable activation of the load a predetermined period of time after activation has been enabled.
Sutterlin teaches that after the capacitor reaches the Vmax of the power supply, the capacitor 15 provides ample energy for transmitting to at least one packet before the voltage on capacitor drops to Vmin. There is an inherent period of time between the potential going from Vmax to Vmin (Please see Sutterlin col.3, lines 54-62).
As per claim 4, Sutterlin et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein the buffer means is converted to a mid-voltage.
Sutterlin teaches when the capacitor reaches its second predetermined level which is greater than Vmin and less than Vmax, the voltage lies half way in between and this defines as mid- voltage. (Please see Sutterlin et al. col4, lines 12-21).
As per claim 5, Sutterlin et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein the buffer means comprises capacitors.
Sutterlin teaches a capacitor 15 is defined as capacitor. (Please see Sutterlin col.3, lines 63-col.4, line 21).
As per claim 8, Sutterlin et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein when the buffered power reaches the predetermined power, a signal is generated to enable activation of the load (Sutterlin et al teach when the capacitor reaches the predetermined potential, transmissions are enabled again. Please see col.4, lines 12-21).
As per claim 9, Sutterlin et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein further comprising:
a controller to enable activation of the load responsive to the predetermined level of buffered power being available in the buffer means.
Sutterlin teaches when the capacitor 15 reaches a second predetermined potential, the transmissions are enabled again (Please see col.3, line 63 - col. 4, line21).
As per claim 10, the combination of Sutterlin et al. and Moller et al. teach
The power control system of claim 1, where in the system is connected to the load.
Sutterlin teaches a power control system with a load. (Please see Sutterlin et al., Fig. 1. #12)
PNG
media_image2.png
507
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also please see Moller et al, Fig. 1, para 34, DC Load 16.
PNG
media_image4.png
554
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As per claim 11,
The power control system of claim 10, wherein the load includes means for activation and deactivation of the load.
Sutterlin teaches if plurality packets are closely spaced in time, the voltage on capacitor 15 may drop to the predetermined potential Vmin. Interface circuit 11 senses the drop in potential to Vmin and in response provide the OOGAS signal on line 13 to the digital transceiver 12. Transceiver 12 in turn, causes the signal TXON on line 19 to go inactive (thereby halting any transmission in progress) and temporarily prevents further transmission. Additionally, when out of gas OOGAS becomes active, transceiver 12 indicates to cell 17 that a collision has become detected. While a collision with other data on power line did not actually occur. The result and the desired action of retransmission of the disturbed packet are the same. Thus, the collision detect signal may be used to cause cell 17 to schedule a retransmission of the last packet. Sutterlin also teaches that the TXON signal sent from the transceiver controls when the transmit drive amplifier of interface circuit is active. (Please see Sutterlin col.3 line 5-22, col.3 line 63- col.4 line 21).
As per claim 14, please refer to the analysis of claim 1.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutterlin et al. (US 5703766 A) in view of Moller et al. (US 20110133551 A1.), and in view of Villar et al. (US 20170244268 A1.), and further in view of Aldous (US 5638540).
As per claim 12,
The combination of Sutterlin et al., Villar et al. and Moller et al. do not teach
The power control system of claim 1, wherein the load includes a wireless transceiver.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aldous teaches
where in the load includes a wireless transceiver. [(Fig.1 Receiver #16 and Transmitter #18; these are radio/wireless [see col. 5 line 57- col. 6, line 6; col. 8, lines 19-35] supplied by power supply and power management means or a power control system)].
PNG
media_image5.png
513
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a wireless transceiver taught by Aldous into the power management system of Sutterlin et al., Villar et al. and Moller et al. This would have been obvious because they teaches that the load to be powered is a transceiver, and by integrating a radio, it is possible to transmit and receive data without the necessity of connecting a computer to a land line, thereby dramatically enhancing the ease of data exchange. (Please see Aldous - col. 5, line 57- col. 6, line 6).
As per claim 15, please refer to the analysis of claim 1 and 12 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutterlin et al. (US 5703766 A) in view of Moller et al. (US 20110133551 A1.), and in view of Villar et al. (US 20170244268 A1.), and further in view of Aldous (US 5638540).and in further view of Raman (US 2022020147).
As per claim 13,
A galley inserts including a power control system according to claim 12.
The combination of Sutterlin et al, Villar et al. Moller et al. and Aldous Sutterlin and Aldous teach claims 1 and 12 above, however, they do not teach the system being a part of a galley insert.
Raman et al. teach of a galley insert that is connected to a wireless secure network and is provided power through a power bus or an alternate power source, such as a supercapacitor (Please see Ramen et al, paras. 3, 39 and 48).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the system taught by Sutterlin et al. Villar et al. Moller et al. and Aldous into the system taught by Raman et al. This would have been obvious because like Raman et al., the combination of Sutterlin et al. Villar et al. Moller et al. and Aldous also provide power from an alternate power source, and by including this alternate power source into a gally insert it would provide alternate power when the aircraft’s power bus is off or unavailable (Raman et al. - para. 48).
Conclusion
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 Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)270-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights