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
Claims 1-6 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.
In claim 1, line 9 , the phrase “for synchronizing the lighting-control signal the lighting-control signal” is not clear and appear to be redundant.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: apparently the word
“an” before 12C and serial respectively should be - -a - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan (U.S. Pub No. 20220312573).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, 10, Tan disclose a computer system comprising: an elongate first conductor; a fan controller coupled to the elongate first conductor and configured to: (i) transmit a fan-control signal over the elongate first conductor, and (ii) transmit a lighting-control signal over the elongate first conductor, the lighting-control signal including content of higher frequency than the fan-control signal, and (iii) transmit a lighting-clock signal over the elongate second conductor for synchronizing the lighting-control signal the lighting-control signal; a fan device coupled to the elongate first and second conductors, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal and to the lighting-clock signal; and a lighting device distinct from the fan device, wherein at least the lighting-control signal and the lighting-clock signal are exposed to the lighting device, and wherein at least the first or second elongate conductor conducts bidirectionally between the fan controller and the fan device.
(it is considered that the method comprising transmitting first and second signals (SD_FAN1 and SD_LG, See Fig.6) between a device interface (connected to the signals TI and TT of system 100 in Fig.3) and a first device (controller 130, fig.3) over an elongate conductor (implicitly disclosed cable between computer system and electronic device 100), the second signal including content of higher frequency relative to the first signal (see fig.6: SD_LG has a higher frequency than SD_FAN1; [see also paragraph 0033] and exposing at least the second signal (SD_LG) to a second device (light-emitting element group 120) distinct from the first device, the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal (the SD_LG control signal controls the light-emitting element group, the controller and the fan are non-responsive to this signal. It is also the lighting-control signal is synchronized according to the lighting-clock signal (as the controller is used for synchronizing the signal see paragraph 0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose wherein the fan device includes a sensor that transmits, along the second conductor, a waveform that varies according to a rotation speed of a rotor of the fan device, and wherein the waveform is received in the fan controller.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/409,616 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application recites:
A computer system comprising:
an elongate first conductor;
a fan controller coupled to the elongate first conductor and configured to:
(i) transmit a fan-control signal over the elongate first conductor, and
(ii) transmit a lighting-control signal over the elongate first conductor, the lighting-control signal including content of higher frequency than the fan-control signal, and
(iii) transmit a lighting-clock signal over the elongate second conductor for synchronizing the lighting-control signal the lighting-control signal; a fan device coupled to the elongate first and second conductors, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal and to the lighting-clock signal; and
a lighting device distinct from the fan device,
wherein at least the lighting-control signal and the lighting-clock signal are exposed to the lighting device, and wherein at least the first or second elongate conductor conducts bidirectionally between the fan controller and the fan device.
Claim 15 of application 18/409,616 recites:
A computer system comprising: an elongate conductor; a fan controller coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to: (i) transmit a fan-control signal over the elongate conductor, and (ii) transmit a lighting-control signal over the elongate conductor, the lighting-control signal including content of higher frequency relative to the fan-control signal; and a fan device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the lighting-control signal to a lighting device distinct from the fan device, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the fan-control signal.
Though the prior art discloses transmit lighting-control signal, it does not specifically disclose that it is synchronized by: transmit a lighting-clock signal over the elongate second conductor for synchronizing the lighting-control signal. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider more than one elongate conductor and to transmit a lighting-clock signal over the elongate second conductor for synchronizing the lighting-control signal since it would have achieved a desired result for providing appropriate signals to the devices. Therefore, it is well settled that the omission of an element, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element of step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elberbaum (U.S. Patent No. 7,973,647) discloses a method and apparatus for remotely operating at least one remote controlled appliance through a monitor station of a video interphone. The appliance itself being capable of operation by a remote control device. The monitor station includes a receiving input, a central processing unit, a memory, select keys and at least one output. The remote control device is used for generating a coded signal to the receiving input which filters the received coded signal for feeding a clean envelope of the coded signal to the central processing unit. The central processing unit processes the envelope and generates counted data pertaining to the envelope and indexes and stores the counted data into the memory. One of the select keys is assigned for retrieving and feeding the counted data to the output on the basis of the indexing. The output regenerates the coded signal for operating the appliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661