DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed September 27, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-13, 17, and 18 are currently rejected. Claims 15 and 16 are objected to. Claims 14, 19, and 20 are allowable.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “using the second stream of packets and the first stream of packets” and Applicant should be consistent with referring to the streams. The claim should read “using the second stream of packets of electrical attributes and the first stream of packets of electrical attributes” to maintain consistency. Claim 15 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 3 recites “the second stream of electrical attributes” and Applicant should be consistent with referring to the second stream. The claim should read “the second stream of packets of electrical attributes” to maintain consistency. Claim 16 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 4 recites “each packet of electrical attributes of the second stream” and Applicant should be consistent with referring to the second stream. The claim should read “each packet of the second stream of packets of electrical attributes”.
Claim 5 recites “the predetermined time” and Applicant should be more consistent in the terminology usage. The claim should read “the predetermined period of time”.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a data acquisition subsystem”, “an attribute calculator” and “a communication module” in claims 1, 8, and 13.
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 1-13, 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 6 recites “the electrical attribute” and it is unclear what electrical attribute is being referred to, as there are multiple “electrical attributes” (emphasis on the plural) disclosed in claim 1. Claim 17 recites similar language and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 7 recites “an energy packet” and it is unclear if this is meant to be the same energy packet as introduced in claim 6, or a different, new energy packet.
Claim 8 recites “the electrical attribute” and it is unclear what attribute the claim refers to. There are a first and second stream of electrical attributes and there is no singular electrical attribute previously claimed. The claim further recites “the energy packets” and as noted, there are no multiple energy packets claimed and it is unclear what energy packet the claim is referring to.
Claim 13 recites “determine a contingency control action” and it is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer to the contingency control action introduced in claim 1, or if this is meant to be a new contingency control action.
Claim 18 recites “the energy packets” and there are no multiple energy packets claimed and it is unclear what energy packet the claim is referring to.
Claim limitations “an attribute calculator” and “a communication module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the “attribute calculator”, no specific structure is claimed and the disclosure only refers to various calculations that can be performed. Additionally, the “communication module” lacks any specific structure and the data communicated and how it is communicated is not explicitly stated in Applicant’s disclosure. It is unclear if the attribute calculator and the communication module are purely software, purely hardware, or a combination of both. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 13 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 and 9-12 are rejected based on their dependency from above-rejected claim 1.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, the prior art of record broadly discloses electrical packet transmission. This includes electric power delivery control based on received data and calculating various parameters and attributes of electric power delivery.
However, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach or suggest the various control actions taken under the various scenarios, as well as the packet streams being compared against one another to determine the missing packet (explicitly using the second stream of packets of electrical attributes). The closest prior art of record are the following references:
Schweitzer, III et al. (U.S. 11,035,891 B1; retrieved from IDS filed September 27, 2023) discloses energy packet control in a voltage monitoring system. This includes offsetting packets to determine voltage stability, as well as voltage thresholds;
Buckman et al. (U.S. 2003/0012147) discloses network packet flows controlled by packet processing behaviors. This includes specific parallel data paths to efficiently process routing operations;
Garner et al. (U.S. 11,515,726 B1) discloses smart devices that can transmit Wi-Fi packets and power monitoring devices that can detect current changes; and
Cheng (U.S. 2022/0322244) discloses power balancing in a network system sing control instructions. Remaining electric power is compared with a threshold average value. Moreover, these thresholds can be adjusted based on the applicable scenario.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118