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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 12/6/2023, where claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Remarks 35 USC § 112(f)
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 watchdog module configured to receive”, “a status monitor configured to obtain”, “a coordinator module configured to define”, and “a control action module arranged to provide” in claim 1.
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected to because of the following: independent claim 1 recites “a watchdog module configured to receive”, “a status monitor configured to obtain”, “a coordinator module configured to define”, and “a control action module arranged to provide”, which are claim limitations that 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 the claimed function. The specification does not recite any corresponding structure(s) to perform said functions.
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; 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected to because of the following: independent claim 1 recites the element “the one or more devices”. The element is recited with the article “the”, which indicates it is referring to a previously recited element. However, there is no prior element of the same name. There is a prior element of “one or more of the power devices”. However, it is unclear whether they are of the same element or different and distinct elements.
Claim 1 further recites “to provide a set point to selected devices of the one or more devices”. The element “selected devices” is not recited with an article “the”, which indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, in the previous limitation, an element of the same name is also recited. Therefore, it is unclear whether they are the same element or different and distinct elements.
As such, for the above reasons, render the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-14 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim they depend from.
Claim 6 is rejected to because of the following: claim 6 recites the element “the one or more devices”. The element is recited with the article “the”, which indicates it is referring to a previously recited element. However, there is no prior element of the same name. There are prior elements of “power devices”, “one or more of the power devices”, and the “one or more devices” recited in claim 1. However, it is unclear whether it is referring to any one of the elements recited in claim 1. If it is indeed referring to one of the elements recited in claim 1, it is suggested to amend the recitation in claim 6 to clearly indicate which element it is referring to. As such, renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected to because of the following: claim 7 recites the element “one or more power devices”. The element is recited without any article, which indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, claim 1 recites the same element, thus it is unclear whether they are of the same element or different and distinct elements. As such, renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 is rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim it depends from.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 1, recites a power and energy management system architecture that is directed to one of the four statutory subject matter, e.g. system; however, the claim encompasses a mere collection of data and/or software modules and thus lacks the necessary physical article(s) or object(s) (e.g., hardware elements). The claim is clearly not a machine or a product of manufacture, a series of steps or acts to be a process, nor is it a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, it fails to fall within a statutory category.
Claims 2-14 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim they depend from.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pincu et al., (US 20060082222 A1) (hereinafter Pincu).
Referring to claim 1, Pincu teaches a power and energy management system (PEMS) architecture for managing power consumed by a plurality of power devices on a network, the architecture comprising:
one or more local supervisors (¶ [0059], figs. 2A-B, management module 110) each arranged to be connected in digital communication with one or more of the power devices on the network (¶ [0071], figs. 4A-B, a plurality of PoE device 420 comprising a plurality of PDs (powered devices)), each local supervisor comprising:
an input (CONTROL ERROR) to receive a control error signal indicative of a difference between the power consumption of the one or more devices and power available on the network for those devices (¶ [0012], “The power budget is dynamically allocated based on pre-defined criteria. In the event of a failure of one or more power supplies of the central power source, in one embodiment the management module directs each of the power managed modules to change their power consumption to a pre-assigned amount. In another embodiment, in the event of a failure of one or more power supplies, the management module directs each of the power managed modules to reduce their power consumption by a pre-assigned amount.” ¶ [0054], “In one embodiment, the power manager of at least one power managed module may sense a change in a voltage level from the at least one power source, and in response reduce power consumption.”);
a watchdog module configured to receive the control error signal and to determine from the control error signal whether there is a need for PEMS action on the network (¶ [0053], “In the event of a failure of one or more power supplies of the central power source, in one embodiment the management module directs each of the power managed modules to change their power consumption to a pre-assigned amount.” ¶ [0054], “In one embodiment, the power manager of at least one power managed module may sense a change in a voltage level from the at least one power source, and in response reduce power consumption. Such a response enables automatic power management by the power manager in the absence of communication from the management module.” Examiner notes, it is implied that a watchdog module is in place in order to detect the failure event as disclosed above.);
a status monitor configured to obtain information as to the operating status of the one or more power devices (¶ [0072], fig. 4A “The respective power manger 320 is arranged to receive an input from the respective power meter 310, to be in communication with management module 110, and to be in communication with the respective operating circuit 330, 460. The respective power meter 310 is arranged to provide the respective power manager 320 an indication of power drawn by respective operating circuit 330, 460.”);
a coordinator module configured to define a coordination strategy for operating selected devices of the one or more devices based on the determination from the watchdog module and the information obtained by the status module (¶ [0017], “the management module is operative to allocate power budgets on the basis of priority, each of the power managed modules being assigned a priority.” ¶ [0069], “In the event that power drawn by operating circuit 330 is in excess of the received power allocation, power manager 320 is operative to communicate with operating circuit 330 to reduce the power drawn to be within the budget.” ¶ [0111], “In the event that in stage 1140, sufficient power is not available for all modules, in stage 1150 power is reallocated to all attached modules. It is to be understood that at least one module may have its power budget reduced. Power is reallocated for each module in accordance with priority.”); and
a control action module arranged to provide a set point to selected devices of the one or more devices to operate according to the coordination strategy determined by the coordinator module (¶ [0069], “In the event that power drawn by operating circuit 330 is in excess of the received power allocation, power manager 320 is operative to communicate with operating circuit 330 to reduce the power drawn to be within the budget.” Examiner notes, it is implied that a control action module is in place in order to reduce the power drawn according to the budget.)
Referring to claim 2, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1, wherein the plurality of devices on the network comprise one or more groups of power devices, and wherein a respective local supervisor is arranged to be connected to each group (Figures 4A-B, management module 110 is connected to a plurality of PoE devices 420, and each PoE device 420 is connected to a plurality of PD. Examiner recognizes the plurality of PD connected to one PoE device 420 as one group.)
Referring to claim 3, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1, wherein the watchdog module determines whether PEMS action is required based on detection of an overcharge condition on the network (¶ [0077], “The use of a look up table and pre-transmitted scenarios enables management module 110 and power managers 320 to react insufficient time so as to reduce consumption thereby limiting the amount of time for which an overload condition may be present.”)
Referring to claim 4, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1, wherein the watchdog module determines whether PEMS action is required based on detection of a failure condition on the network (¶ [0012], “In the event of a failure of one or more power supplies of the central power source, in one embodiment the management module directs each of the power managed modules to change their power consumption to a pre-assigned amount.)
Referring to claim 6, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1, wherein the control action module sets the devices to operate at a set point based on the determination of the coordinator module (¶ [0103], “In the event that in stage 1040, sufficient power is not available for all modules, in stage 1050 power is reallocated to all attached modules. It is to be understood that at least one module may have its power budget reduced.”)
Referring to claim 7, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1, comprising a plurality of said local supervisors each connected to one or more power devices (¶ [0066], Fig. 2B“Management module 110 of first power shelf 210 and management module 110 of second power shelf 220 act as redundant management modules, with a first one of the management modules 110 acting as an active module and a second one of the management modules 110 acting as a redundant module.” ¶ [0067], “The active management module 110 is in communication with each of the modules drawing power from power supplies 100, such as power sourcing device 120, power managed module 140, switch 150 and switch having on board power supply 200, and obtains an indication of the power requirements from each of the modules. Power is allocated to each of the modules according to pre-defined criteria, and the modules are operative to draw power in accordance with the allocation…Redundant management module 110 monitors the indications received by active management module 110, and thus acts as a redundant module capable of operation in the event of a failure of active management module 110.” Examiner notes, because the redundant management module 110 takes over the operation in the event of a failure of active management module 110; therefore, the redundant management module 110 is implied to also connect to one or more PD.)
Referring to claim 8, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 7, wherein each local supervisor is connected to a group of power devices (Figures 4A-B, management module 110 is connected to a plurality of PoE devices 420, and each PoE device 420 is connected to a plurality of PD. Examiner recognizes the plurality of PD connected to one PoE device 420 as one group.)
Referring to claim 9, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1, further comprising a global supervisor arranged to communicate to the or all of the one or more local supervisors over the network (¶ [0114], “In another embodiment, at least one of power requirements and priority levels are supplied by a user utilizing a host computer or controller communicating with management module 110.”)
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pincu as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Boodaghians et al., (US 20150028670 A1) (hereinafter Boodaghians).
Referring to claim 5, Pincu teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1. However, Pincu does not explicitly teach wherein a determination is made as to whether any storage devices on the network can be recharged based on the determination by the…module.
Boodaghians teaches wherein a determination is made as to whether any storage devices on the network can be recharged based on the determination by the…module (¶ [0037], “In certain embodiments, at least one battery pack 40 or other energy source may also be connected to the power management system 30 for charging during low periods and to provide additional power during high (peak) load periods”).
Pincu and Boodaghians are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with power management system (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Pincu and Boodaghians before them to modify the rack power management of Pincu to incorporate the function of recharge power storage device by Boodaghians. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Boodaghians (¶ [0033]-[0038]), because the function of recharge power storage device does not depend on the rack power management. That is the function of recharge power storage device performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to increase available power by supplementing with rechargeable power storage device as suggested by Boodaghians (¶ [0037]).
Referring to claim 10, Pincu teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 1. However, Pincu does not explicitly teach a PEMS on an aircraft power network.
Boodaghians teaches a PEMS on an aircraft power network (¶ [0011], “Various embodiments of the invention relate to a power management system comprising at least one fuel cell system, a power distribution unit electrically connected to the fuel cell system so as to receive a power output from the fuel cell system”. ¶ [0030], “The fuel cell system 10 may be located in any suitable location on the aircraft.”)
Pincu and Boodaghians are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with power management system (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Pincu and Boodaghians before them to substitute the aircraft environment as taught by Boodaghians for the generic environment of Pincu. Because both Pincu and Boodaghians teach methods of managing power and energy used by devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of power management technology. The motivation would have been to increase flexibility of the power management system by allowing it to be used in various environments.
Referring to claim 11, Pincu teaches the limitations above. However, Pincu does not explicitly teach the power devices are power devices in a cabin of an aircraft.
Boodaghians further teaches the power devices are power devices in a cabin of an aircraft (¶ [0031], “the fuel cell system 10 may also be used to power other aircraft systems such as, but not limited to, passenger seats, passenger entertainment systems, emergency lighting, reading lights, lavatory units, etc.”)
Referring to claim 12, Pincu further teaches the PEMS architecture of claim 11, wherein the power devices include power devices whose power consumption can be adjusted (¶ [0012], “In the event of a failure of one or more power supplies of the central power source, in one embodiment the management module directs each of the power managed modules to change their power consumption to a pre-assigned amount. In another embodiment, in the event of a failure of one or more power supplies, the management module directs each of the power managed modules to reduce their power consumption by a pre-assigned amount.”).
Pincu teaches the limitations above. However, Pincu does not explicitly teach power devices can be switched on or off.
Boodaghians further teaches power devices can be switched on or off (¶ [0042], figs. 5 and 6, “If, at step 115, the control panel 38 determines that the power output is approaching and/or exceeds a maximum load level programmed into the control panel 38, the control panel 38 may instruct the GNC 36 to perform one or more of steps 125-140, depending on the quantity of the power output and the operations in the galley 12, as well as the additional monuments 42 and/or attendant related systems 44. At step 125, the control panel 38 may instruct the GNC 36 to cycle individual GAINs 32 off via the PDU 34.”)
Referring to claim 13, Pincu teaches the limitations above. However, Pincu does not explicitly teach the power devices include cabin lighting and/or cabin entertainment devices.
Boodaghians further teaches the power devices include cabin lighting and/or cabin entertainment devices (¶ [0031], “the fuel cell system 10 may also be used to power other aircraft systems such as, but not limited to…passenger entertainment systems, emergency lighting, reading lights…etc.”)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pincu in view of Boodaghians as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Suen et al., (US 20180323626 A1) (hereinafter Suen).
Referring to claim 14, Pincu in view of Boodaghians teach the PEMS architecture of claim 13. However, Pincu in view of Boodaghians do not explicitly teach the power devices are grouped according to cabin seat row and wherein each seat row group has a respective local supervisor.
Suen teaches the power devices are grouped according to cabin seat row and wherein each seat row group has a respective local supervisor (¶ [0027], “The seat box 10 receives the power from the vehicle 11 at an input 28 and distributes the power among passenger seats on the vehicle, typically a group or row of seats, to power items at each seat, for example, a reading light, flight attendant call light, monitor, or other items.” ¶ [0050] “the seat boxes 10 may be connected in communication with one another either directly or indirectly via Ethernet.”)
Pincu, Boodaghians, and Suen are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with power management system (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Pincu in view of Boodaghians and Suen before them to substitute the distributed power management as taught by Suen for the generic central power management of Pincu in view of Boodaghians. Because both Pincu in view of Boodaghians and Suen teach methods of managing power and energy used by devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of power management technology. The motivation would have been to localize the power management at seat row level without affecting other area(s) as suggested by Suen (¶ [0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20220326757 (Sydir) – discloses power control technologies that can be used to reduce power consumption of certain devices.
US 11,183,843 (Cooper) – discloses method and apparatus for managing one or more loads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118