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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters(s) not mentioned in the description: 801, 802, 803, 804, and 805 as shown in Fig. 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference characters 801, 802, 803, 804, and 805 are included in Fig. 8 but not mentioned in the description (e.g., in par. [0006]). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “sets” should be “set.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17, line 17 the recitation “power supply unit” should be “power supply apparatus.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
Claims 1, 17, and 18 recite “power transmission unit,” which is a generic place holder for “means” followed by the functional language “supply power to the main body unit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed supply of power. Supplying power to the main body unit is described in paragraphs [0021], [0024]-[0025], [0028], [0041]-[0042], [0053], [0069], and [0075] and Figs. 1-2 and 5 with respect to power transmission unit 117. Accordingly, “power transmission unit” is interpreted as power transmission unit 117 and equivalents.
Claim 4 recites “a communication unit,” which is a generic place holder for “means” followed by the functional language “perform communication with the main body unit” without reciting sufficient structure. Performing communication is described in paragraphs [0025] and [0075] and Fig. 1 with respect to data transmission and reception unit 118. Accordingly, “a communication unit” is interpreted as data transmission and reception unit 118 and equivalents.
Claim 7 recites “a switching member,” which is a generic place holder for “means” followed by the functional language “switching on/off each of the plurality of resistors” without reciting sufficient structure. Switching resistors is described in paragraphs [0034] and [0075] and Figs. 1 and 7 with respect to components 705-708. Accordingly, “switching member” is interpreted as component 705-708 and equivalents.
Claim 9 recites “a holding unit,” which is a generic place holder for “means” followed by the functional language “configured to hold a power classification of a switched state of the resistors even in a state in which power is not supplied from the power supply apparatus” without reciting sufficient structure. A holding unit is described in paragraphs [0044], [0055] and [0075] and Fig. 1 with respect to memory unit 117 or 124. Accordingly, “holding unit” is interpreted as a memory unit 117 or 124 and equivalents.
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.
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 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 2, 6, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, and 18 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 2 recites the limitation "the power" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, “a power” is used.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the resistance value” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, “a resistance value” is used.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “switching the plurality of resistors on/off by using the switching member so as to become the predetermined resistance value.” It is unclear and thus indefinite if all the resistors are set to on (or to off) or if each resistor is selectively set to on (or to off). Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as selectively switching each resistor of the plurality of resistors on/off by using the switching member so as to become the predetermined resistance value.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the electric current” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, “an electric current” is used.
In addition, claim 10 recites the limitation “an on/off of a switch configured to switch in a state in which the main body unit is connected.” It is unclear what “switch in a state in which the main body unit is connected” means. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a switch configured to switch states based on whether the main body unit is connected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the smallest classification” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “a smallest classification” is used.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the same classification” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, “a same classification” is used.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the currently set power classification” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, “a currently set power classification” is used.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “at least one processor or circuit” in line 13. Is this the same processor or circuit as that recited in line 8 or a different one? Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the processors and circuits recited in lines 8 and 13 are assumed to be different.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “at least one processor or circuit” in line 14. Is this the same processor or circuit as that recited in line 9 or a different one? Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the processors and circuits recited in lines 9 and 14 are assumed to be different.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1 to 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0288044 to Wada et al. (“Wada”) (US counterpart application to JP 2020/144157 reference submitted in Applicant’s IDS) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0031151 to Masuda et al. (“Masuda”).
Regarding claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
A power supply unit configured to enable power that the power supply unit requests from a power supply apparatus to be changed based on information received in a communication with a main body unit (Wada discloses a seat 11 (“power supply unit”), a camera body 12 (“main body”), and an external power supply (“power supply apparatus”). See, e.g., Wada at pars. [0023], [0027], and [0077] and Fig. 8.), the power supply unit comprising:
a power transmission unit configured to supply power to the main body unit (Wada discloses a power transmission unit 43 (“power transmission unit”) that transmits power to camera body 12 (“main body unit”). See e.g., Wada at par. [0080].); and
at least one processor or circuit (Wada discloses a control unit 41 (“at least one processor or circuit”) that can be a CPU. See, e.g., Wada at par. [0078] and Fig. 8.).
While Wada discloses a “power supply apparatus,” a “power supply unit,” a “main body unit,” and “at least one processor or circuit,” as discussed above, Wada does not explicitly disclose the following:
a “power supply unit configured to enable power that the power supply unit requests from a power supply apparatus to be changed based on information received in a communication with a main body unit,”
“a detection unit configured to detect a connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit,”
“a setting unit configured to set a power classification of the power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply apparatus,”
“wherein the power transmission unit activates the main body unit by supplying power to the main body unit in a predetermined power classification in a case in which the detection unit has detected the connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit,” and
“wherein the setting unit sets the power classification based on (i) a first power information, which is power information of the main body unit, and (ii) a second power information, which is power information of the power supply unit, and requests power in the set power classification from the power supply apparatus.”
However, Wada discloses a power connection A2 to an external power supply (“power supply apparatus”) that can include Power Line Communication (PLC). See Wada at par. [0027]. At the time of filing the application, based on the suggestion in Wada, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to look for an external power supply using PLC technology to eliminate the A3 network cable. See Id. In same field of endeavor as Wada (network communications) and thus analogous art, Masuda discloses PLC technology in the form of power-over-Ethernet (POE). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wada’s control system to include Masuda’s POE configuration. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G).
Wada as modified by the teachings of Masuda discloses:
A power supply unit configured to enable power that the power supply unit requests from a power supply apparatus to be changed based on information received in a communication with a main body unit (In the POE system of Masuda, concentrator 10 (analogous to the external power supply in Wada) is a power source equipment (PSE) that provides power to information terminal 20 (analogous to seal 11) and option unit 30A, 30B (analogous to camera body 12) based on the class determination by control unit 29 of information terminal 20 using the attribute data provided by control units 34 of option unit 30A, 30B. See Masuda at pars. [0043]-[0047] and Figs. 3, 4, and 6. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable. See Wada at par. [0027]. Thus, it would have been obvious to incorporate Masuda’s POE configuration, which includes detection and classification features of Masuda’s control unit 29 and control unit 34, into the respective controls for Wada’s seat 11 and camera body 12. Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G). Thus, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious the claimed “power supply unit.”),
a detection unit configured to detect a connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit (Masuda discloses that “control unit 29 reads information described in the acquired attribute data to determine the number of the option units (two in FIG. 6).” See Masuda at par. [0044], emphasis added. Thus, Masuda discloses detecting devices attached to the information terminal 20. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable. See Wada at par. [0027]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate Masuda’s POE configuration, which includes detecting a connection based on attribute information, into the respective controls for Wada’s seat 11 and camera body 12. Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G). Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda’s POE control configuration renders obvious the claimed “detection unit.”),
a setting unit configured to set a power classification of the power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply apparatus (Masuda discloses that its “control unit 29 sets the latching relay 28 into a state for achieving the class setting resister value corresponding to the determined class” and that the “determined class” is the “class as a whole” of the combined devices (“power supply unit” and “main body unit”). See Masuda at pars. [0045]-[0046]. Thus, Masuda discloses a “setting unit.” It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable. See Wada at par. [0027]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate Masuda’s POE configuration, which includes setting the determined class, into the controls for Wada’s seat 11. Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G). Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda’s POE control configuration renders obvious the claimed “setting unit.”),
wherein the power transmission unit activates the main body unit by supplying power to the main body unit in a predetermined power classification in a case in which the detection unit has detected the connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit (Masuda discloses that “until the defined power is supplied to the control unit 29, … the power sourcing corresponding to the default power reception quantity class zero (maximum power consumption range: 0.44 W-12.95 W) is performed” and that power is provided to the option units 30A, 30B via switch SW1. See Masuda at pars. [0024] and [0027]-[0030] and Fig. 4, emphasis added. That is, until the “class” is determined, default power corresponding to class zero (“predetermined power classification”) is provided to information terminal 20 which then powers option units 30A, 30B (“power transmission unit activates the main body unit”). Thus, Masuda discloses the claimed activation. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable. See Wada at par. [0027]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate Masuda’s POE configuration into Wada’s system so that seat 11 activates camera body 12 by providing power at a predetermined power classification. Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G). Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda’s POE control configuration renders obvious the claimed activation of the main body unit using a “predetermined power classification.”), and
wherein the setting unit sets the power classification based on (i) a first power information, which is power information of the main body unit, and (ii) a second power information, which is power information of the power supply unit, and requests power in the set power classification from the power supply apparatus (Masuda discloses that the “control unit 29 determines the class as a whole by combining the information terminal 20 and the option units 30A, 30B” and that “the control unit 29 may calculate the power consumption quantity as a whole to fit the calculation result to a class table.” Masuda further discloses that, “[a]fter determining the class, the control unit 29 sets the latching relay 28 into a state for achieving the class setting resister value corresponding to the determined class ….” See Masuda at pars. [0044]-[0046], emphasis added. That is, Masuda’s control unit 29 uses power consumption quantity of the option units 30A, 30B (“first power information”) and power consumption quantity of the information terminal 20 (“second power information”) to set the power classification for powering the combined devices (“request[] power in the set power classification from the power supply apparatus”). Thus, Masuda discloses the claimed setting unit. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable. See Wada at par. [0027]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate Masuda’s POE configuration into Wada’s system to set the power classification using power consumption information from both the seat 11 and camera body 12. Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G). Accordingly, Wada as modified by Masuda’s POE control configuration renders obvious the claimed setting and the clamed requesting.).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit is further configured to change the power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply apparatus based on the power classification set by the setting unit, in a case in which the power classification set by the setting unit is different from the power classification of the power that is currently being supplied (Masuda discloses that the “control unit 29 determines the class of the information terminal at a current time point of the information terminal 20 from the detection result, and sets the class setting resister value on the basis of the determination result in an autonomous manner. Since the information terminal device is configured given above, the information terminal device may automatically switch the class setting resistors values and may allow the user to eliminate time and effort in manually setting the class. See Masuda at par. [0047], emphasis added. Thus, Masuda discloses the claimed change in power classification.);
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the power transmission unit is further configured to wirelessly supply power to the main body unit (Wada discloses that “power transmitting unit 43 wirelessly transmits power supplied from the power supply unit 42 to the camera body 12 via the power transmitting coil 24.” See Wada at par. [0080] and Fig. 8, emphasis added.).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit is further configured to acquire the first power information from the main body unit via a communication unit configured to perform communication with the main body unit (Masuda discloses that control unit 29 receives the power consumption quantity information from option units 30A,B (analogous to camera body 12). See Masuda at par. [0045]. Wada discloses that “communication unit 44 [of seat 11] wirelessly communicates with the communication unit 53 of the camera body 12 via the antenna 25.” See Wada at par. [0081] and Fig. 8. Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda disclose the claimed “setting unit.” It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable. See Wada at par. [0027]. Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G).).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the communication unit is configured to perform wireless communication with the main body unit (Wada discloses that “communication unit 44 [of seat 11] wirelessly communicates with the communication unit 53 of the camera body 12 via the antenna 25.” See Wada at par. [0081] and Fig. 8.).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
further comprising a setting circuit configured to include a plurality of resistors, wherein the setting unit sets the power classification used for power supply to the main body unit and the power supply unit by the resistance value of the resistors in the setting circuit (Masuda discloses a latching relay 28 (“setting circuit”) with latch elements (to store the state of the switch without power) and resistors R21-R25 that is set by control unit 29 based on the determined class. See Masuda at pars. [0025] and [0046] and Fig. 6. ). Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda disclose the claimed “setting circuit.” It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wada to incorporate the POE configuration of Masuda, which would include latching relay 28, to eliminate Wada’s A3 network cable (see Wada at par. [0027]) and to store the state of the determined class even without power (see Masuda at pars. [0025] and [0046]). Because both Wada and Masuda disclose use of PLC technology, a combination of the teachings of Wada and Masuda would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. See § MPEP 2143.I(A) and (G).).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 6, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
comprising a switching member capable of switching on/off each of the plurality of resistors (Masuda discloses that latching relay 28 (“setting circuit”) includes latch elements (“switching member” – unlabeled switches in latching relay 28). See Masuda at par. and Fig. 6. Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda disclose the claimed “switching member.”).
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 7, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit is configured to determine a predetermined resistance value from the first power information and the second power information, and sets the power classification by switching the plurality of resistors on/off by using the switching member so as to become the predetermined resistance value (Masuda discloses that control unit 29 (“setting unit”) sets the latching relay 28 and thus the resistance value of resistors R21-R25 to achieve the “class setting resister value corresponding to the determined class.” See Masuda at pars. [0029] and [0046] and Fig. 6. Because the “latching relay 28 maintains the set state,” the determined resistance value becomes the “predetermined resistance value” as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
comprising a holding unit configured to hold a power classification of a switched state of the resistors even in a state in which power is not supplied from the power supply apparatus (Masuda discloses that the “latching relay 28 includes a plurality of latch elements capable of storing a state of a switch without a power source, and each latch element is connected to a power bus in parallel through resistors R21-R25.” See Masuda at par. [0025], emphasis added. Thus, Masuda discloses that the latch elements (“switch member”) are configured to “hold a power classification” even when power is not supplied. Accordingly, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious the claimed “holding unit.”
Regarding claim 10, which depends on clam 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the detection unit is further configured to detect a connection between the power supply unit and the main body unit by at least one of a change in the electric current supplied to the main body unit, a data communication with the main body unit, or an on/off of a switch configured to switch in a state in which the main body unit is connected (As discussed in claim 1, Masuda discloses detecting a connection based on attribute data from option unit 30A, 30B (corresponding to camera body 12 in Wada and the claimed “main body unit”). See Masuda at par. [0044]. Accordingly, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious “detect[ing] a connection between the power supply unit and the main body unit by at least one of … a data communication with the main body unit….”).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the predetermined power classification is the smallest classification among the requested power that can be set by the power supply apparatus (Masuda discloses that the “default power reception quantity class [is] zero…,” and thus discloses that claimed “predetermined power classification.” See Masuda at par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit causes the main body unit to activate normally in a case in which the power classification set by the setting unit is the same classification as the power classification of the power that is currently being supplied (Using a broad but reasonable interpretation of “activate normally,” Masuda discloses a classification procedure to activate the option units 30A, 30B (“normally activate”) by determining the “class as a whole” (and “corresponding power consumption quantity as a whole”) and setting the latching relay 28, which then “maintains the set state.” [B]y inserting/extracting the LAN cable 11, the concentrator 10 recognizes the class as a whole and power sourcing is started under the appropriate characteristics.” See Masuda at pars. [0044]-[0047]. Thus, if the number and type of option units (e.g., option units 30A, 30B) do not change, the latching relay setting does not change (“the power classification set by the setting unit is the same classification as the power classification of the power that is currently being supplied”). Accordingly, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious a “setting unit [that] causes the main body unit to activate normally in a case in which the power classification set by the setting unit is the same classification as the power classification of the power that is currently being supplied.”
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit resets the power classification in a case in which the power classification set by the setting unit is a different classification from the power classification of the power that is currently being supplied (Masuda discloses a classification procedure that determines the “class as a whole” (and “corresponding power consumption quantity as a whole”) and sets the latching relay 28 based on the determined class. See Masuda at pars. [0044]-[0047]. Thus, if the number and type of option units (e.g., option units 30A, 30B) change, Masuda discloses that the latching relay setting will change (“reset”) to match. Thus, Wada in view of Masuda discloses the claimed “setting unit [that] resets the power classification in a case in which the power classification set by the setting unit is a different classification from the power classification of the power that is currently being supplied.”).
Regarding claim 14, which dep[ends on claim 13, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit is configured to change the power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply apparatus based on the power classification after the reset (Masuda discloses that “the latching relay 28 maintains the set state [and] [a]fter this, by inserting/extracting the LAN cable 11, the concentrator 10 recognizes the class as a whole and power sourcing is started under the appropriate characteristics.” See Masuda at pars. [0044]-[0047]. That is, after the “reset” as discussed above with respect to claim 13, the concentrator 10 applies the new power setting upon power reset. Thus, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious a “setting unit [that] is configured to change the power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply apparatus based on the power classification after the reset.”).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the setting unit is further configured to erase information of the currently set power classification in a case in which the main body unit is not connected, and cause the power supply unit to reactivate (Masuda discloses a classification procedure that determines the “class as a whole” (and “corresponding power consumption quantity as a whole”) and sets the latching relay 28 based on the determined class. [B]y inserting/extracting the LAN cable 11, the concentrator 10 recognizes the class as a whole and power sourcing is started under the appropriate characteristics.” See Masuda at pars. [0044]-[0047]. Thus, if option units (e.g., option units 30A, 30B) are not connected (“main body unit is not connected”), the latching relay setting will change to only match the class and power consumption quantity of the information terminal 20 (i.e., “erase” the currently set power classification of the option units (“main body unit”)) and reactivate by only providing the power corresponding to the class and power consumption quantity of the information terminal 20. Thus, Wada in view of Masuda discloses the claimed “setting unit [that] is further configured to erase information of the currently set power classification in a case in which the main body unit is not connected, and cause the power supply unit to reactivate.”). ).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
wherein the main body unit and the power supply unit are configured to be detachable (Wada discloses that seat 11 (“power supply unit”) is detachable from the camera body 12 (“main body unit”). See Wada at par.[0022] and Figs. 1-8.).
Regarding claim 17, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
A power receiving apparatus configured to enable power that a power supply unit requests from a power supply apparatus to be changed based on information received in a communication with a main body unit (Wada discloses a surveillance camera 1 (“power receiving apparatus”) that includes a seat 11(“power supply unit”) and a camera body 12 (“main body unit”). See Wada at par. [0020] and Figs. 1 and 8. The element “configured to enable power that a power supply unit requests from a power supply apparatus to be changed based on information received in a communication with a main body unit” is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.),
wherein the power receiving apparatus is configured by the main body unit (Masuda discloses that control unit 29 receives the power consumption quantity information from option units 30A,B (analogous to camera body 12 of Wada). See Masuda at par. [0045]. Wada discloses that “communication unit 44 [of seat 11] wirelessly communicates with the communication unit 53 of the camera body 12 via the antenna 25.” See Wada at par. [0081] and Fig. 8. Masuda discloses that its “control unit 29 sets the latching relay 28 into a state for achieving the class setting resister value corresponding to the determined class” and that the “determined class” is the “class as a whole” of the combined devices (analogous to surveillance camera 1 od Wada). See Masuda at pars. [0045]-[0046]. Thus, Wada as modified by Masuda discloses the claimed “power receiving apparatus [that] is configured by the main body unit.”), and
the power supply unit is communicatively connected to the main body unit (Wada discloses that “communication unit 44 [of seat 11] wirelessly communicates with the communication unit 53 of the camera body 12 via the antenna 25.” See Wada at par. [0081] and Fig. 8. As discussed above, seat 11 corresponds to “power supply unit” and camera body 12 corresponds to “main body unit.” Thus, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious a “power supply unit [that] is communicatively connected to the main body unit.”),
wherein the main body unit comprises:
an image capturing unit configured to include image capturing element (Wada discloses that camera body 12 (“main body unit”) includes optical unit 54 (“image capturing unit”) that configured to include a lens (“image capturing element”). See Wada at par. [0089].); and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a power receiving unit configured to receive power (Wada discloses a power receiving unit 52 (“at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a power receiving unit”). See Wada at pars. [0087] and [0099] and Fig. 8.), and
wherein the power supply unit comprises:
a power transmission unit configured to supply power to the main body unit (Wada discloses a power transmission unit 43 (“power transmission unit”) that transmits power to camera body 12 (“main body unit”). See e.g., Wada at par. [0080].), and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a detection unit configured to detect a connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit (The element “a detection unit configured to detect a connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit” is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1. Wada discloses that its system is realized using integrated circuits (“at least one processor or circuit”). See Wada at par. [0099].), and
a setting unit configured to set a power classification of power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply unit (Assuming that the second recitation of “power supply unit” should be “power supply apparatus,” this element is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.),
wherein the power transmission unit activates the main body unit by supplying power to the main body unit in a predetermined power classification in a case in which a connection with the main body unit has been detected (This element is essentially the same as that recited in claims 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.), and
wherein the setting unit sets of the power classification based on (i) a first power information, which is power information of the main body unit, and (ii) a second power information, which is power information of the power supply unit, and requests power in the set power classification from the power supply apparatus (This element is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 18, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious:
A power supply system, the power supply system configured by a power receiving apparatus (Wada discloses an external power supply (“power supply system”) and a surveillance camera 1 (“power receiving apparatus”). See Wada at par. [0020] and Figs. 1 and 8. Masuda discloses a concentrator 10 (analogous to external power supply of Wada) that is configured by information terminal 20/option unit 30A,30B (analogous to surveillance camera 1). Thus, Wada in view of Masuda discloses the claimed power supply system.), and
a power supply apparatus communicatively connected to the power receiving apparatus (Wada discloses that the external power supply (“power supply apparatus”) is connected to the surveillance camera 1 (“power receiving apparatus”). See Wada at pars. [0023]-[0024 and [0027] and Fig. 8.),
wherein the power receiving apparatus comprises a main body unit, and a power supply unit (Wada discloses a surveillance camera 1 (“power receiving apparatus”) that includes a seat 11(“power supply unit”) and a camera body 12 (“main body unit”). See Wada at par. [0020] and Figs. 1 and 8.),
the power supply unit communicatively connected to the main body unit (Wada discloses that “communication unit 44 [of seat 11] wirelessly communicates with the communication unit 53 of the camera body 12 via the antenna 25.” See Wada at par. [0081] and Fig. 8. As discussed above, seat 11 corresponds to “power supply unit” and camera body 12 corresponds to “main body unit.” Thus, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious a “power supply unit is communicatively connected to the main body unit”),
wherein the main body unit comprises:
an image capturing unit configured to include image capturing element (Wada discloses that camera body 12 (“main body unit”) includes optical unit 54 (“image capturing unit”) that configured to include a lens (“image capturing element”). See Wada at par. [0089].), and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a power receiving unit configured to receive power (Wada discloses a power receiving unit 52 (“at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a power receiving unit”). See Wada at pars. [0087] and [0099] and Fig. 8.),
wherein the power supply unit comprises:
a power transmission unit configured to supply power to the main body unit (Wada discloses a power transmission unit 43 (“power transmission unit”) that transmits power to camera body 12 (“main body unit”). See e.g., Wada at par. [0080].); and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a detection unit configured to detect a connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit (The element “a detection unit configured to detect a connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit” is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1. Wada discloses that its system is realized using integrated circuits (“at least one processor or circuit”). See Wada at par. [0099].), and
a setting unit configured to set a power classification of power that the power supply unit requests from the power supply apparatus (This element is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.),
wherein the power transmission unit activates the main body unit by supplying power to the main body unit in a predetermined power classification in a case in which the detection unit has detected the connection between the main body unit and the power supply unit (This element is the same as that recited in claims 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.), and
wherein the setting unit sets the power classification based on (i) a first power information, which is power information of the main body unit, and (ii) a second power information, which is power information of the power supply unit, and requests power in the set power classification from the power supply apparatus (This element is essentially the same as that recited in claims 1 and is therefore obvious over Wada in view of Masuda for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.), and
wherein the power supplying apparatus supplies power requested by the setting unit to the power receiving apparatus (Masuda discloses that “by inserting/extracting the LAN cable 11, the concentrator 10 recognizes the class as a whole [of information terminal 20 and option units 30A, 30B] and power sourcing is started under the appropriate characteristics.” See Masuda at par. [0046]. As discussed above, concentrator 10 corresponds to the external power supply of Wada (“power supplying apparatus”) and information terminal 20 and option units 30A, 30B correspond to correspond to surveillance camera 1 of Wada (“power receiving apparatus”). Thus, Wada in view of Masuda renders obvious a “power supplying apparatus [that] supplies power requested by the setting unit to the power receiving apparatus.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0177051 to Alon Ferentz discloses storing class information in memory.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0327766 to Ghoshal et al. discloses use of non-volatile memory for storing class information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116