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 .
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 21-23 are new.
This action is Final.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner believes that the title of the invention is imprecise. A descriptive title indicative of the invention will help in proper indexing, classifying, searching, etc. See MPEP 606.01. However, the title of the invention should be limited to 500 characters. Examiner suggests “SELF-INTERRUPTING POWER DEVICE USING A RELAY IN RESPONSE TO HEARTBEAT SIGNALS”.
Drawings
Examiner contends that the drawings filed 12/22/2025 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppans1 PGPUB 2014/0225456, and further in view of McMillan PGPUB 2025/0103344.
As per claim 1, Teppans teach a system, comprising:
a relay, disposed inline between a first power supply and an electronic device [FIG. 1 power control device 1 (relay) and 0023: (the input 2 of the power control device 1 is connected to a power input (first power supply), and the output 4 connects to an external device for powering the external device); and 0036: (output 4 connects to a computer 10 (electronic device)], configurable to physically interrupt a flow of electricity from the first power supply [0039: (when computer 10 stops sending heartbeats to the power control device 1, it stops power to the computer 10)];
a relay controller configured to control operations of the relay [0030-0031: (controller 6 (relay controller) of power control device 1 controls operation of switch 5 of the power control device 1 to connect or disconnect power to the connected computer 10, thus controlling operations of the relay)]; and
the electronic device configured to transmit heartbeat signals [0031 and 0036 and FIG. 3a: (computer 10 sends heartbeat signals on channel 8)], wherein the heartbeat signals are received by the relay controller via a universal serial bus (USB) connection between the relay controller and the electronic device [0027: (signal input 8 may be USB)], and wherein the relay controller is configured to:
open the relay, in response to determining a cessation of the heartbeat signals, to terminate the flow of electricity [0031, 0036, and 0038-0039: (when computer stops sending heartbeats, output power 4 is disconnected)]; and
close the relay after terminating the flow of electricity to restart the flow of electricity [0033 and 0038: (after a second period after shutting off the computer 10, power will again be supplied to power output 4)].
Teppans does not appear to teach the relay controller powered by a second power supply. Teppans describe the power control device 1 having a controller 6 to control the switch 5 to provide an output voltage on output 4, but does not appear to describe the voltage utilized or provided to the controller 6.
McMillian teach a CPU coupled to a USB hub, and the CPU having a COM port to provide heartbeat signals to a power relay unit which selectively controls power to the USB hub. McMillian is thus similar to Teppans because they both teach a power switching device that disconnects power based on the stopping of heartbeat message. McMillian further teaches a relay, disposed inline between a first power supply and an electronic device [FIG. 3: (power relay unit 120 is between power supply 140 and USB hub (device) 130)], configurable to physically interrupt a flow of electricity from the first power supply [0018: (heartbeat provided to power relay unit 120 causes its MCU 121 to cause power relay 122 to close the contacts to supply 12V to USB hub 130; when no heartbeat is received, MCU of power relay unit 120 stops the power relay 122 and cuts the power to the USB hub)]; a relay controller powered by a second power supply and configured to control operations of the relay [FIG. 3: MCU 121 (relay controller) and 0018 and 0021: (USB port provides 5V (such as from the connection 112), and MCU 121 receives the 5V (second power supply) from the USB connection 112 for operation and uses the voltage to selectively activate the relay 122 based on whether a heartbeat signal is provided from CPU 114 so that the relay can provide the 12V power (first power supply) to the USB hub)]; and device configured to transmit heartbeat signals [FIG. 3 CPU 110 and 0018: (CPU 110 provides heartbeat signals)], wherein the heartbeat signals are received by the relay controller via a universal serial bus (USB) connection between the relay controller and the device [FIG. 3, FIG. 4, 0016, and 0018: (CPU has a USB com port 112 that communicates with MCU 121)], and wherein the relay controller is configured to: open the relay, in response to determining a cessation of the heartbeat signals, to terminate the flow of electricity [0016 and 0018: (if a heartbeat command is not received, stopping the supply and cutting power to the USB hub)]; and close the relay after terminating the flow of electricity to restart the flow of electricity [0016 and 0018: (MCU may instruct relay to close and supply power to the USB hub 130 when a heartbeat is once again received after termination)]. McMillian shows that the controller in the power relay unit 120 is connected by USB to a computing device to receive 5V and the heartbeat message, and that the controller uses the 5V to selectively activate the relay switch.
The combination of Teppans with McMillian yields Teppan’s computer 10 serving as the second power supply to provide the heartbeat message and an operating voltage of 5V to the controller 6 of the power control device 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use McMillian’s teachings of the controller of the power relay unit operating at a different voltage than the voltage provided across the contacts of the relay switch in Teppans. It is reasonable because Teppans’ controller 6 selectively controls whether a voltage is allowed to be passed from power input 2 to power output 4 through switch 5, but the controller 6 does not receive power from such voltage. The controller 6 still needs to be powered though in order to selectively control the switch, and it would be reasonable to receive such power over the USB connection from the computer that provides the heartbeat signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the computer that provides the heartbeat signal to also provide the operating voltage to the controller 6 over the USB connection because USB protocol allows for both data transfer and power delivery and it would be a convenient and simple way to provide power to controller 6 by utilizing the existing connections. It is noted that power can still be provided over the USB connection even if the heartbeat data signal stops.
As per claim 2, Teppans and McMillian teach the system of claim 1, wherein determining the cessation of the heartbeat signals comprises: receiving a first heartbeat signal, and determining that a second heartbeat signal is not received within a predetermined amount of the first heartbeat signal [Teppans 0030-0031: (reception of heartbeat signal resets the timer; thus if a second heartbeat is not received with the time specified by the timer, a cessation of the heartbeat is determined and the switch will be stopped)].
As per claim 3, Teppans and McMillian teach the system of claim 1, wherein the flow of electricity extends from a source to the electronic device via the relay [Teppans 0023: (electricity flows from a power source supplying a voltage at the input 2 to the output 4 to the Computer 10 via the switch/relay 5)].
As per claim 5, Teppans and McMillian teach the system of claim 1, wherein the second power supply extends from the electronic device to the relay controller [McMillian FIG. 3, 0018, and 0021: (MCU is connected to USB COM port and USB connection provides 5V; MCU operates on 5V to activate the relay so that it can pass 12V across the relay switch)].
As per claim 6, Teppans and McMillian teach the system of claim 5, wherein the relay controller is exclusively powered by the electronic device [McMillian FIG. 3, 0018, and 0021: (MCU is connected to USB COM port and USB connection provides 5V; MCU operates on 5V to activate the relay so that it can pass 12V across the relay switch); the MCU operates exclusively on the 5V provided by the CPU over the USB connection].
Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 10, Teppans and McMillian teach the method of claim 9, wherein the relay controller is powered by another power source that is different from the power source [McMillian FIG. 3, 0018, and 0021: (MCU is powered by 5V provided from the USB connection to CPU, which is different from the power source providing 12V to the relay)].
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, Teppans and McMillian teach the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the electronic device is a computer [Teppans FIG. 3 computer 10].
As per claim 16, Teppans and McMillian teach the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the heartbeat signals are received from software executed by the computer [Teppans 0041: (heartbeat transmission code for transmitting heartbeat is in main loop of program; thus heartbeat signals are from software executed by computer); and McMillian 0018: (main loop iteration causes heartbeat to be sent and an ACK routine to be performed; thus heartbeat is from software executed by computer)].
As per claim 17, Teppans and McMillian teach the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the flow of electricity to the electronic device is stopped using the relay [Teppans 0031, 0036, and 0038-0039: (when computer stops sending heartbeats, output power 4 is disconnected) by the power control device 10; McMillian 0016 and 0018: (if a heartbeat command is not received, stopping the supply and cutting power to the USB hub using the power relay unit)].
As per claim 18, Teppans and McMillian teach the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the relay is controlled by the relay controller [0030-0031: (controller 6 (relay controller) of power control device 1 controls operation of switch 5 of the power control device 1 to connect or disconnect power to the connected computer 10, thus controlling operations of the relay)].
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppans PGPUB 2014/0225456 in view of McMillan PGPUB 2025/0103344, and further in view of Cook et al. (hereinafter as Cook) PGPUB 2023/0421403.
As per claim 13, Teppans and McMillian teach the method of claim 7.
Teppans and McMillian do not explicitly teach the method further comprising: receiving, by the power device, a command signal from a remote device; and in response to receiving the command signal, stopping, by the power device, the flow of electricity to the electronic device. Teppans teaches a remote device 17, but Teppans and McMillian do not appear to specify that the remote device can provide a command signal to the power control device/power relay unit to stop the flow of electricity to the electronic device.
Cook teaches listening for heartbeat signals and selectively controlling switches to power cycle devices. Cook is thus similar to Teppans and McMillian. Cook further teaches the method further comprising: receiving, by the power device, a command signal from a remote device [0029: (controller can send a message over a network to the switches to power cycle the inoperable devices)]; and in response to receiving the command signal, stopping, by the power device, the flow of electricity to the electronic device [0029: power cycle (power cycling involves turning off power and turning it on again)].
The combination of Teppans and McMillian with Cook leads to another remote device that may also control the power cycling of the relay switch in Teppans and McMillian over a network when the remote device does not receive a heartbeat signal from the CPU/computer 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cook’s teachings of using a remote device to monitor heartbeat signals of computing device and to control the switches to power cycle the computing devices when heartbeats are not received from the computer 10 by the remote device in Teppans and McMillian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the computer 10 provide heartbeat signals to the remote device 17 in Teppans and McMillian because remote device 17 is a system management computer, and it should be aware of the status of its managed devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the remote device 17 be able to provide a command signal to the power control device/power relay unit in Teppans and McMillian because it allows the remote device to power cycle and recover the computer when it detects an error on the computer or on the heartbeat signal provided to the remote device. This allows for power cycling the computer in case the heartbeat signal from the computer to the power control device/power relay unit is working but not the heartbeat signal from the computer to the remote device.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 13 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Montena (PGPUB 2012/0313454) teaches a power detection device 118/controller that controls operation of a switch 116 for passing through power from input 112 to output 114, and teaches that the power detection device 118 may be independently powered by a battery.
Araki et al. (PGPUB 2007/0202837) teaches battery remaining amounts and keep-alive transmission intervals for each battery remaining amount.
Woodburn et al. (PGPUB 2024/0072840) teaches the heartbeat signal including information such as the remaining battery life.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
1 Cited reference but not used in previous Office Action.