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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-36 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cooper US 11,183,843 B1 as detailed 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. According to Fig.4 and Paragraph 0069, said control unit will be interpreted as a processor.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 21, the applicant claims “a sensor coupled to the appliance to monitor an operation condition of the appliance at a specific time point”. While a sensor coupled to the appliance to monitor an operation condition of the appliance might be supported by the specification in Paragraphs 0071 and 0121, the limitation “a sensor coupled to the appliance to monitor an operation condition of the appliance at a specific time point” is not supported in said paragraphs. The same rational applies to claim 31.
Claims 22-30, 37-39 and claims 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected dependent claims 21 and 31 respectively and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s), claim 31 recite(s) monitoring an operation condition of an appliance, collecting power usage data of the appliance, and determining whether to adjust power provided to the appliance.
The recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “monitoring, collecting and determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user visually observing the condition and power usage of an appliance and mentally calculating an adjusted value of power needed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of an appliance and a sensor. Regarding said additional elements, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the appliance is recited as an object that is being acted upon, i.e. generally applying the abstract idea to a particular technical field. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of a sensor and an appliance are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 32-36 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 32-36 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 31.
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) 21-29, and 31-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper US 11,183,843 B1 (hence Cooper).
In re claims 21 and 31, Cooper discloses method and apparatus for managing one or more loads powered by an alternating current power source in order to prevent and mitigate overloads and other abnormal conditions of the power source (Abstract) and teaches the following:
an appliance having a battery module, the battery module being configured to provide power to the appliance (Fig.2, #13, #16 “oven”, and Col.17, lines 19-20 “Generator 13 may for example be a wind turbine, solar panel, fuel cell, flywheel, battery, water, wind or steam turbine and may incorporate a DC to AC inverter circuit, generator or alternator to provide electricity if that is the desired output”);
a sensor coupled to the appliance to monitor an operation condition of the appliance at a specific time point (Col.27, lines 46-55 “refrigerator or freezer temperature to determine if additional cooling is needed. The sensors for example may be utilized by 25a in the setting of priorities for loads to be connected to the generator”, Col.29, lines 20-47 and lines 62-66, Col.31, lines 14-32, Fig.6, and Col.34, line 57 – Col.35, line 6, and Col.37, lines 22-24 “the current control 44 and/or load monitor 23b may be incorporated within the oven 16”));
and a control unit communicatively coupled to the sensor to collect information obtained from the sensor, the control unit being configured to determine whether to adjust power provided to the appliance from the battery module based on the operation condition of the appliance (Col.30, lines 4-35 “After generator power is made available via the transfer switch, load control 25a operates to determine if the highest priority load 16-18 can be supported by the available power of generator 13 and if so load control 25a causes the load switch associated with that load to be closed via commands conveyed to the switch by its corresponding communications channel”)
In re claims 22 and 32, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the appliance is a stove (Fig.2, #16 “oven”)
In re claims 23 and 33, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the sensor is configured to monitor a cooking process (Col.33, lines 29-36, and Col.33, line 65 – Col.34, line 13)
In re claims 24 and 34, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether to adjust power provided to the stove from the battery module according to the cooking process and a predefined cooking protocol (Col.33, lines 29-36, and Col.33, line 65 – Col.34, line 13)
In re claims 25 and 35, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the appliance is a refrigerator (Col.18, lines 12-13 “food storage appliances such as freezers and refrigerators”)
In re claims 26 and 36, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the control unit is further configured to determine a charge and discharge schedule for the battery module based on a power usage pattern of the appliance (Col.49, lines 5-30 “It is preferred that load control 25b operate to determine the level of charge of battery 68 at or below which it is desirable to start the generator 72 to charge the battery in order to maintain or extend the amount of energy which is available to power DC to AC inverter 67 to be utilized as backup power in the event of failure of the power grid 12”)
In re claim 27, Cooper teaches the following:
one or more sensors, including at least the sensor coupled to the appliance, or third party services coupled to the control unit that are configured to collect contextual information related to one or more of the battery module or the appliance (Col.27, lines 46-55 “These devices can include various sensors, for example such as temperature sensors to monitor outside temperature useful in controlling air conditioner operation, engine or alternator cooling air inlet or exhaust temperature useful in determining genset load, refrigerator or freezer temperature to determine if additional cooling is needed”)
In re claim 28, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the control unit further comprises a machine learning model trained to predict a usage of the appliance based on the collected contextual information (Col. 34, lines 57 – Col.35, line 6)
In re claim 29, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the control unit is further configured to adjust the determined charge and discharge schedule based on the predicted usage of the appliance by the trained machine learning model (Col.49, lines 5-30 “It is preferred that load control 25b operate to determine the level of charge of battery 68 at or below which it is desirable to start the generator 72 to charge the battery in order to maintain or extend the amount of energy which is available to power DC to AC inverter 67 to be utilized as backup power in the event of failure of the power grid 12”)
In re claim 37, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the appliance further comprises a heat transfer element (Col.5, lines 11-15)
In re claim 38, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor and wherein the temperature sensor is configured to sense an environmental condition associated with the appliance (Col.27, lines 46-55 “These devices can include various sensors, for example such as temperature sensors to monitor outside temperature useful in controlling air conditioner operation), and wherein the environmental condition includes a cooking process associated with the appliance (Col.33, lines 29-36, and Col.33, line 65 – Col.34, line 13)
In re claim 39, Cooper teaches the following:
wherein: the appliance is an air conditioner (Col.11, lines 42-45 “FIG. 13 shows a simplified diagram of a combination of load coupler 80 shown by example configured with typical air conditioner load 18 for coupling the load to the power source”), and the contextual information includes an environmental condition that includes weather data (Col23, lines 7-17 “home & outdoor such as temperature, sunlight, humidity, wind, generator operating conditions”)
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Jeong et al US 2022/0077691 A1 (hence Jeong).
In re claim 30, Cooper discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a physical user interface configured to receive a user input for manually editing the charge and discharge schedule for the battery module at a time point
Nevertheless, Jeong discloses battery charging, including but not limited to managing battery charging based on battery powered device usage (Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
a physical user interface configured to receive a user input for manually editing the charge and discharge schedule for the battery module at a time point (Paragraph 0081 “he scheduling user interface enables a user to set and/or revise a battery charging (and swapping) schedule”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Cooper reference to include the scheduling user interface, as taught by Jeong, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to set and/or revise a battery charging (and swapping) schedule such as said schedule helps prevent multiple devices from needing battery replacements at the same time and therefore can minimize downtime due to drained batteries (Jeong, Paragraph 0081).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights