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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/2/2025.
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.
Claim limitation(s):
IPRPDU
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim(s) limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim(s) have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
IPRPDU = generic box 30, FIGURE 1 (see below)
PNG
media_image1.png
451
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However a generic box without explicit details in the specification is not sufficient to support means for claim terminology. Therefore, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
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, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function 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 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.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The disclosure fails to set forth enabling details of the IPRPDU means (shown as generic box 30, FIGURE 1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following details must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Enabling structural details of the IPRPDU means, 30 FIGURE 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1
The claim term “internal power regulation, protection and distribution unit” (IPRPDU) is not structurally disclosed in either the Figures nor the Specification. The component is the crux/backbone of the invention. The name of the component suggests it comprises the functions of power regulation, power protection, and power distribution wherein the FIGURES at best depict mere power connection lines (See IPRPDU 30 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
422
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is no circuity or structure to support any of power regulation and power protection. The power distribution depicted is not sufficient in that it shows exemplary connections that fails to depict the overall actual structure of what achieves said different distribution paths.
It is noted that a disclosure of an electrical circuit apparatus, depicted in the drawings by block diagrams with functional labels, was held to be non-enabling (In re Gunn, 537 F2d 1123, 1129, 190 USPQ 402, 406, CCPA 1976). In regard to said components above, there is no indication in the specification as to whether the parts represented by boxes are “off the shelf” or must be specifically constructed or modified for applicant’s system. Also there are no details in the specification of how the parts should be interconnected, timed and/or controlled so as to obtain the specific operations claimed by the applicant. See MPEP 2164.06(a).
Applicant is directed to either identify said component as "off the shelf" and provide request support in terms of the part name, manufacturer, part number and specification data sheets; or otherwise provide enabling details for said custom made structure for said component. No new matter should be added.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1
The disclosure fails to provide any structural support for the “distribution unit” means beyond a mere block diagram which is insufficient to support means for claim construction. Nor is the component I known and recognizable component in the art making it unclear what said component is.
The claim purports to claim “and bus inlet and bus outlet ports” which appears to claim a plurality of each however the disclosure only teaches a single bus inlet port and a single bus outlet port. Therefore to be clear, the claim should recite “a bus inlet power and a bus outlet port”.
The claim will be examined as best understood as such.
Regarding Claims 1-5 and 10
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform to current U.S. practice, because the language of the claim does not provide the necessary clarity and precision required thereby making the scope of the invention sought to be patented undeterminable from the language of the claim with any reasonable degree of certainty. The claim generally recites what the apparatus does, without requisite structure to perform said claimed operation.
Particularly, the following limitations are unclear:
1. A data hub for a home-automation system, the hub comprising an internal power regulation, protection and distribution unit (IPRPDU), a plurality of device ports and bus inlet and bus outlet ports connected to the IPRPDU, wherein the hub is powered by at least two powered devices connected to the device ports. (emphasis added. The bold claim limitations attempt to inappropriately narratively define the operation of the system rather than to structurally define the apparatus. Because no structure is provided to perform the desired function, it is unclear what structure if any is intended)
2. The data hub of claim 1, further comprising a keypad controller connected to one of the device ports, wherein the keypad controller is powered by the IPRPDU (inappropriately narrative).
3. The data hub of claim 2, wherein the keypad controller controls operation of the at least two powered devices.
4. The data hub of claim 2, further comprising a switch between each device port and the IPRPDU, wherein if a device is not connected to an individual port, the switch is opened.
5. The data hub of claim 1, further comprising a switch between the bus inlet port and the IPRPDU, wherein the switch is opened if the IPRPDU detects that sufficient power is being provided to the IPRPDU by the at least two powered devices by detecting a voltage applied to the device port.
10. The data hub of claim 1, further comprising a visual indicator, wherein the visual indicator is activated when the IPRPDU detects, via load detection and voltage detection, that there is insufficient voltage to power the hub.
The narrative language of the claims further fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim as required by MPEP 2173.05(g), and is thus indefinite. The above functional language purports to define the invention by reciting a function or result achieved by the invention, thereby making the boundaries of the claim scope ambiguous and unclear. The Examiner acknowledges that an apparatus may be claimed via positively recited structure and/or through use of functional language however said function must be tied to identifiable structure/component in order for said otherwise narrative language to functionally limit said structure (see MPEP 2114), else the claim simply becomes a narrative recitation of the desired function/result achieved of the device, as with the present case. As such, it is noted per MPEP 2114 that an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function noting that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (see MPEP 2114).
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s) 3, it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
All other claims will be examined as best understood in regard to the actual structure claimed.
Regarding Claim 9
The disclosure discloses the device detection circuit as depicted in all of FIGURE, see [0026] which comprises the motor voltage detector circuit (140). The claim attempts to claim the two circuits as two discrete and separate circuits.
The claim will be examined as best understood as a device detection circuit comprising a motor voltage detection circuit, noting that none of said circuitry are names of specific or known circuits making them nominally claimed circuits.
Rule 105 – Request for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In view of Applicant’s Figures which comprise mere block diagrams for the component(s) listed below, it appears Applicant intends for said components to comprise what is conventional and known in the art (see MPEP 608.02(d)) however applicant has failed to provide an adequate disclosure and description of said components, nor has applicant used conventional terminology for said components making the components unknown.
Therefore, Applicant is required to provide further background information on their invention, particularly for the following components of:
IPRPDU (30, FIGURE 2).
including:
Component name as used in the art and as used by the manufacturer;
Component manufacturer; and
Component specification data sheet(s).
as well as a detailed summary of the improvements associated with the invention and any technical information known to applicant concerning the related art particularly for said components listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldstein US 2017/0356243.
Feldstein teaches:
1. A data hub for a home-automation system, the hub comprising a power unit (412, FIG4) a plurality of device ports (408, FIG4) and bus inlet port (ie port input of POE from 704, FIG7) and bus outlet port (ie port connection to 702 and/or 602, FIG7) connected to the power unit (noting all components of FIG7 being either directly or indirectly connected to the power unit 412 of 710 of FIG7 to form a complete and operative system).
2. The data hub of claim 1, further comprising a keypad controller connected to one of the device ports (ie keypad controller of laptop 414, FIG7 and/or keypad of room
controller 410, FIG4. Noting said keypad is at least indirectly connected to one of said device ports as all components are connected to form a complete and operative circuit).
6. The data hub of claim 1, wherein the at least two powered devices are motors that actuate at least one of: rolling blinds, sun shades, drapes, screens, or doors (see motorized shades 106, FIG4 and respective Specification).
8. The data hub of claim 1, wherein the device ports are configured as RJ45, 8-wire connector jacks (see [0173] noting that RJ45 refers to an 8-wire standard making the 8-wire inherent to RJ45 connectors).
9. The data hub of claim 8, further comprising a device detection circuit comprising a motor voltage detector circuit (ie one sensor 604, noting that neither of device detection circuit nor motor voltage detector circuit are known or specific circuits in the art therefore the claim terms used before “circuit” are nominal nor are they claimed functionally such that any circuit would read on the claimed “motor voltage detector circuit”).
10. The data hub of claim 1, further comprising a visual indicator (See LEDs [0213] and/or visual display 410, FIG4).
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldstein US 2017/0356243 in view of Wendt et al. US 2018/0249556.
Feldstein fails to teach:
4. The data hub of claim 2, further comprising a switch between each device port and the power unit.
Wendt teaches a data hub comprising a switch between each device port and the power unit (see Specification @ [0065,0067]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the isolation switch between each port as taught by Wendt into the system of Feldstein with the motivation of providing desirable port control for safety and or desirable power control such as power saving capability of turning the port off.
Feldstein fails to teach:
5. The data hub of claim 1, further comprising a switch between the bus inlet port and the power unit.
Wendt teaches a data hub comprising a switch between each device port and the power unit (see Specification @ [0065,0067]), ie the general principal of placing a switch between a port and power component).
It would have been obvious to place a switch between the port as taught by Wendt into the system of Feldstein with the motivation of providing desirable control to the port such as for safety or power savings functionality.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldstein US 2017/0356243 in view of Hansen et al. US 6,690,277.
Feldstein fails to teach:
7. The data hub of claim 1, wherein the device ports comprise self-resetting fuses.
Hansen teaches a device power comprising a self-resetting fuse (See Spec @ col. 9, lines 50-63).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the self-resetting fuse (resettable fuse) as taught by Hansen into the system of Feldstein with the motivation of providing desirable port protection of over-current.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached on The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00-18:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836