DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Dependent claims 2 and 16 were elected in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 09-18-2025. Dependent claims 3-12 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 35 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected election. Election was made with traverse.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
This action is responsive to the following communication: the response filed on 09-18-2025.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
It is also noted, that Applicant has filed a certified copy on 04-05-2024 as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01-22-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97
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) are: “wake-on network unit”, “remote control interface” and “measurement device” in at least claim(s) 1 and 15.
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.
As per dependent claims 2 and 16, these claims are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Action May Be Required By Applicants
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 do one of the following:
(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).
(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.
Claims Objections
Claims 1, 13-15 are objected to because they contain the symbol "/". Such symbols should be avoided because the meaning of the symbol can be interpreted in a number of ways, which adds ambiguity to the claims.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 recites “a computer readable medium…". However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer media. Applicant’s Specification fails to describe the computer readable medium that explicitly excludes signals per se. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, it is reasonable to interpret for the medium to include all possible mediums, including non- statutory mediums. Words like "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure
Therefore, since a signal is not one of the four statutory categories “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory .Thus, the claims are non-statutory. See MPEP 2106.01.
To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 a claim drawn to a computer readable medium that cover both non-transitory and transitory embodiments may be amended to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" before “computer readable medium".
Such an amendment is not considered new matter. See the "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media" memo dated January 26, 2010 (OG Cite: 1351 OG 212; OG Date: 23 Feb 2010).
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) 1-2, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No 2018/0203768 (hereinafter, “Huang”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0031384 (hereinafter, “Yamamoto”).
As per claims 1, 13, 14, 151,2 Huang discloses a measurement device comprising:
a wake-on network unit (NIC 117; Fig 1B) for remotely activating the measurement device, and (NIC 117 is responsible for resetting at least management device 104 as illustrated by Fig. 1B. According to ¶ [0023], the management devices is “configured to monitor processing demands, and components and/or connection status of the server system 100A.” Further, “An administrator can also remotely communicate with the controller 410 to initiate or conduct specific hardware recovery procedures or operations”. ¶ [00600])
a remote control interface (at least ¶ [0067] discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) for which “An administrator can also remotely communicate with the controller 410 to initiate or conduct specific hardware recovery procedures or operations”. ¶ [00600] ) for controlling the functions and/or settings (initiate or conduct specific hardware recovery procedures or operations”; ¶ [0060] ) of the measurement device remotely after the measurement device has been activated through the wake-on network unit. (abstract states “a system and method for smartly resetting a hang device of a server system based upon a Wake-on-Lan (WoL) message and status of the hang device. The system comprises a management device, a switch, a physical layer (PHY) coupled to a network, a network interface (NIC), a monitoring device” )
Huang does not disclose where monitoring device is interpreted more narrowly as a power outlet.
However, Yamamoto discloses that. In particular, Yamamoto discloses the following:
a wake-on network unit for remotely activating the measurement device, and (Fig. 2 illustrates an electrical outlet having a network communication unit 82. ¶ [0040] described the outlet that measures “power consumption for each socket”. Further, the outlet is configured to “when the power supply of the object device is OFF, the power supply of the object device is set ON by transmitting a WakeOnLAN package” ¶ [0055])
a remote control interface (device management server 20; Fig. 1) for controlling the functions and/or settings of the measurement device remotely (¶ [0090] states “device management server 20 that can detect the device connected to the network 2, acquire information on the detected device, and perform uniform management of the detected device can correctly determine the power consumption of each uniquely specified piece of device by acquiring information on the power consumption via the network 2 from the electrical outlet apparatus 80, which makes it possible to measure the power consumption for each socket, and associating those two types of information” ) after the measurement device has been activated through the wake-on network unit. ( It is therefore apparent that the management between device management server 20 and electrical outlet occurs after “when the power supply of the object device is OFF, the power supply of the object device is set ON by transmitting a WakeOnLAN package” ¶ [0055] )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang and Yamamoto because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Yamamoto’s teaching of managing different outlets for power consumption would enhance Huang's system by specifically adjusting various power consuming components, thus enhancing power management for the computer ecosystem.
As per claims 2, 16, Huang as modified discloses wherein the wake-on network unit comprises or is a wake-on local area network unit. (Yamamoto: ¶ [0055]) & ( Wake-on-Lan (WoL) message ¶ [004] including the appropriate hardware/software for implementing the disclosed functions ¶ [0067] )
Claim(s) 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No 2018/0203768 (hereinafter, “Huang”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0031384 (hereinafter, “Yamamoto”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0198246 (hereinafter, “German”).
As per claims 5, 19, does not distinctly disclose a network unit comprises a Power over Ethernet port.
However, German explicitly discloses a network unit comprises a Power over Ethernet port. (¶ [0010])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang as modified and German because all references are in the same field of endeavor. German’s teaching of power over ether would enhance Huang's as modified system by reducing dedicated wires for power and communication, thus enhancing cost and efficiency.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of restriction requirement in the reply filed on 09-18-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination does not require serious burden because “a LAN is a network whereas the POE technology that is used within a LAN to power devices . This is not found persuasive because Applicant assertion that POE is used within a LAN is not supported by any evidence other than Applicant own conclusionary statement. Nor such statement shows how and why these invention does not require searching different classes/subclasses/CPCs or electronic resources as discussed by MPEP 808.02(A)/(C).
On the other hand, the Office submitted ample evidence discussing how the invention falls within different classes/subclasses/CPCs that further require “employing different search strategies or search queries” (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses/CPCs or electronic resources). MPEP 808.02(A)/(C). Indeed, Applicants specification acknowledges these independent and distinct inventions by noting these species as being distinct by referring them as “preferred implementation”. Further, MPEP 806.04(f), recites species are further found to be mutual exclusive species because have (at least partially) non-overlapping scopes thus neither species anticipates one another. For these reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per independent claims 13, 14 and 15, these claims are substantially the same as independent claim 1 and therefore, for sake of brevity, are rejected for similar reasons already described above.
2 As per claim 15, Huang in view of Yamamoto discloses all the expressions already discussed by the claim 1 including the expression directed to “remote control device communicating with the Internet and/or at least one of the at least one measurement device (10)” (Yamomoto: discloses device management server 20 communicating via network 2 with electrical outlet apparatus 80 (Fig’s 1,2,4-5)