Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception {i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims (claims 1 and 18) recite a control device and method for controlling a load amount from a DC power supply. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine and process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organization of human activities, an idea 'of itself,' and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 - 56. The claims recite limitations of: -comparing a voltage ratio; -setting a denominator and numerator to a value; -multiplying the first load by a coefficient; and -execute by a comparison. These steps of comparison, setting, and multiplying, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts. That is, other than reciting a “control device”, “a power supply,” and “a load device,” nothing in the claim precludes generating a setting process for a load using mathematical formulas. For example, but for the “load amount setting process” language in the last element, the claim encompasses using mathematical concepts, such as setting, multiplying and comparing data to a predetermined condition. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites comparing and then setting a load amount based on the mathematical idea. The steps of setting a load amount larger or smaller than a first load amount based on a comparison using math is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using an unknown structure and these steps could be performed using mathematical concepts. Accordingly, this element in the concluding element 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept. In this instance, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of comparing a result and setting a load amount are no more than using the mathematical concepts to apply the exception using generic power components. Mere generalities of setting after a comparison (created by mathematical concepts, i.e. ratios of numerator to denominator) to apply an exception using a generic power supply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Thus the claim is not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more.
For Claim 2, the elements of: in a case where the load amount setting process is repeated a predetermined number of times, the setting unit determines that the predetermined condition is satisfied, and ends the load amount setting process; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 3, the elements of: the setting unit sets a load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is larger than the first load amount, in a case where the second load amount is larger than the first load amount, and the voltage ratio is larger than the determination value, and the setting unit sets a load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is smaller than the first load amount, in a case where the second load amount is larger than the first load amount, and the voltage ratio is smaller than the determination value; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 4, the elements of: the setting unit sets a load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is larger than the first load amount, in a case where the second load amount is smaller than the first load amount, and the voltage ratio is smaller than the determination value, and the setting unit sets a load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is smaller than the first load amount, in a case where the second load amount is smaller than the first load amount, and the voltage ratio is larger than the determination value; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 5, the elements of: the setting unit compares a first value obtained by multiplying the first input voltage value by a predetermined second coefficient, and a second value obtained by multiplying the second input voltage value by a predetermined third coefficient, and the determination value is a ratio of the second coefficient and the third coefficient; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 6, the elements of: wherein the first value is a value obtained by multiplying the first input voltage value by the second coefficient in accordance with the first coefficient, and the second value is the second input voltage value.; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 7, the elements of: wherein in a case where the first coefficient is a, the second coefficient is K, the first input voltage value is Vin, and the second input voltage value is Vin' if (Vin' - K x Vin) x (a - 1) > 0, the setting unit sets the load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is larger than the first load amount, and if not (Vin' - K x Vin) x (a - 1) > 0, the setting unit sets the load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is smaller than the first load amount; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 8, the elements of: the first value is the first input voltage value, and the second value is a value obtained by multiplying the second input voltage value by the third coefficient in accordance with the first coefficient.; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 9, the elements of: in a case where the first coefficient is a, the third coefficient is 1 / K, the first input voltage value is Vin, and the second input voltage value is Vin', if (1 / K x Vin' - Vin) x (a - 1) > 0, the setting unit sets the load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is larger than the first load amount, and if not (1 / K x Vin' - Vin) x (a - 1) > 0, the setting unit sets the load amount of the load device to the new first load amount which is smaller than the first load amount; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 10, the elements of: the load amount of the load device is able to be changed by changing an input current value indicating a magnitude of a current which is input to the load device, and K is 2 - a; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 11, the elements of: the load amount of the load device is able to be changed by changing a resistance value indicating a magnitude of a resistance that consumes power at the load device, and K is 2 /(a+ 1); do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 12, the elements of: a value of power consumption of the load device is able to be changed, and K is lower than or equal to 1 + v(l - a); do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 13, the elements of: the DC power supply is a solar cell; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101
For Claim 14, the elements of: wherein the load device is a voltage conversion device that steps up or steps down a DC voltage from the DC power supply and supplies the stepped up or stepped down DC voltage to a power storage device; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 15, the elements of: wherein the voltage conversion device includes an inductor through which a direct current from the DC power supply flows, a switch which is turned on or turned off to control the direct current flowing through the inductor, and a switch control unit which performs an on and off control of the switch such that a current of a target input current value corresponding to the load amount set by the setting unit, is input from the DC power supply.; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 16, the elements of: a voltage conversion device, a switch, and switch control unit as claimed, do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
For Claim 17, the elements of: a first switch; second switch; and determining the states of the switch; do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Similar method claim 18 and dependent claims 19 - 23 parallel control device claims 1 – 17 and do not add anything significantly more and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation "obtained by multiplying the first load amount by a predetermined first coefficient, and a determination value in accordance with the first coefficient…” One having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the mathematical relationship of a first coefficient and determination value. The dependent claims depend from claims 1 and 18 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation near the end of the claim of: "based on a comparison result …” Even though this element states “a comparison,” one having ordinary skill in the art would may be confused whether this pertains to the comparison in the third line in the claim that states: “that compares a voltage ratio.” One having ordinary skill would not understand what is being compared. This element may also be rejected because of antecedent basis wherein “compares” has already been introduced. Basically, one would be confused as to what is being compared. The dependent claims depend from claims 1 and 18 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation near the end of the claim of: “…a load amount setting process in which a load amount of the load device is set to a new first load amount which is larger or smaller than the first load amount…” By the claim language one having ordinary skill would not understand in which condition results in a new load being set to a larger or a smaller value. The dependent claims depend from claims 1 and 18 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation near the end of the claim of: “…a load amount of the load device is set to a new first load amount which is larger or smaller than the first load amount,…” By the claim language and the mathematics as claimed, one having ordinary skill would not understand how the new first load is adjusted in mathematical relationship to a second load amount. The dependent claims depend from claims 1 and 18 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation near the end of the claim of: “…load amount of the load device is set to a new first load amount…” By the claim language and specification one having ordinary skill would not understand whether a “first load amount” is previous to or subsequent in time to first and/or second load amount. The dependent claims depend from claims 1 and 18 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Possible Allowance
Claim 1 - 23 may be allowable if rewritten after considering all intervening issues such as the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection and the several 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation and amendment of the claims.
The following prior art is pertinent to the claimed invention:
The claimed invention sets a load amount using multiple of a coefficient of two different load amounts. Chinese patent document Wang et al. (CN 115033458 A) teaches using a power consumption correction coefficient to a second power consumption amount which is a ratio of the first power consumption. (Page 12, Par. 2). Wang also teaches a comparison that is related to subsequent power consumption. (Page 11, Par. 5). Wang does not teach a DC power supply, a setting unit that compares a voltage ratio, and a load setting process as claimed in the last step in the instant application.
Palermo et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20230205606) discloses DC power inputs (Par. 0150) and workload-adjustable CPU that determines whether a power consumption is above or below a threshold value. Paragraphs 0576, 0589, 0602, 0615, 0628, etc. describes a workload that is an application ratio of a first value of power consumption and second power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 4pm EST..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights