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 amendment filed on 4/29/2026, where claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 are amended, claims 15-19 are added, claim 7 is canceled, and claims 1-6 and 8-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed on 4/29/2026, with respect to previous rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that claim 1 has been amended to include elements connected to a network and that software cannot connect to a network without physical device. However, the amendment does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1, where the corresponding hardware structures for each of the modules and the monitor are not disclosed either in the amended claim nor in the specification. Therefore, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what specific structures perform the claimed functions. As such, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-7, with respect to previous rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-9, with respect to previous rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 would be allowable if overcome the objection and rejections below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason that independent claims 1 and 15 are allowable over the cited prior art is because Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-9, are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, claims 1 and 15 are allowable over the cited prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a global supervisor connected to then network…” The word “then” appears to be a typographical error. It is assumed the Applicant intended to use the word “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims 1 and 15.
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 1-6 and 8-19 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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected to because of the following: each of the independent claims 1 and 15 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 specification does not recite any corresponding structure(s) to perform said functions. Although claims as currently amended, indicated that the local supervisor comprising such modules and monitor; however, neither the claims nor the specification provide the corresponding structure(s) for each of the modules and monitor. As such, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or acts for the claimed 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 2-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected to because of the following: independent claims 1 and 15 recites “communicates with one or more of plurality of local supervisors over the network…” and “with one or more of plurality of local supervisors over the network.” Respectively. The element “plurality of local supervisors” is recited with no article in each instance, which indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, there is a prior element of the same name appeared in an earlier limitation in each claim. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art, whether they are referring to the same prior elements or are different and distinct elements.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are further rejected to because of the following: each of the independent claims 1 and 15 recites “operating selected devices of the one or more devices based on the determination from the watchdog module…” The element “one or more devices” 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 “plurality of power devices”. It is unclear whether they are of the same element or different and distinct elements.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are further rejected to because of the following: each of claims 1 and 15 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 claims indefinite.
Claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-19 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20050102544 (Brewer) – discloses system for dynamic power throttling based on power level detection and power consumption.
US 20220057851 (Yam) – discloses methods and systems for managing devices based on total power capacity and power consumption.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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)270-5817. 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
Prosecution Insights