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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicants argument that the claim language recites one or more computing device. While Deaver et al teaches power being delivered to one or more “power customers” which may be ([0091] “user devices, homes, buildings and other structure, and to each room, office, apartment, or other unit or sub-unit of multi-unit structure” and [0083] “In this manner, a customer can connect a variety of user devices 130 to the communication network 104.” )without expressly stating the user devices the customer connects to the power may be computing devices. Mick et al teaches power being delivered to one or more computing devices (297, 298), thus the combination makes clear the power customers may connect computing devices.
In regards to applicants argument regarding the newly added claim limitation that accounting is performed on a per port basis of the network devices. Deaver et al teaches accounting being per customer. While Mick et al teaches separate ports for each computing device, Mick et al also does not teach power accounting per port. Therefore multiple power over ethernet references are being cited that teach power accounting per port. Such as: Van Endert PN 2017/0111976 that teaches ([0044] “Based on these measurement values, the load at each port is calculated and the overall load will then correspond to the sum of the loads at each of the ports of the switching unit”) and Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 that teaches ([0031] “The monitoring device is further configured to shut the power source equipment from supplying power to a connecting port, when power consumption of the connecting port exceeds the upper limit power Icut associated with the connecting port, and to record each such shutdown event Ioff_event of the connecting ports and shutdown power Icut_old, which is the peak value of the power consumption at the shutdown event Ioff_event or the then effective upper limit power Icut” [0030] “The monitoring device may further be configured to reset upper limit power Icut of particular connecting ports to upper limit power allocation Iclass associated with the classification of the connecting ports, upon a shutdown event, whereby an upper limit power value Icut of the connecting port being shut down is deducted from the summed power allocation. The particular connecting ports may be a part or all of the connecting ports”). Thus the power of each connecting port is accounted for separately. The examiner notes Chen et al teaches cutting off a particular port if its power consumption ([0031] “The monitoring device is further configured to shut the power source equipment from supplying power to a connecting port, when power consumption of the connecting port exceeds the upper limit power Icut associated with the connecting port”). Chen er al also teaches ([0052] “In an ideal situation, all external devices connected the connecting ports 11, 12 and 14 are powered devices in compliance with or compatible with the PoE standard”). Devices compatible with the POE standard are routinely computing devices.
In regards to applicants argument that in Deaver et al the endpoints do not report consumption. This is incorrect. In Deaver the endpoint is the customer premises and not utility provider that supplies power to the LV subnet customer premises not the LV subnet and the meter that measures the power consumption is at the customer premises ([0003] “Utility meters typically are located at the consumer's premises to measure the amount of power being consumed at the premises” [0143] “The power usage data from the utility meters 208 of the LV subnet receiving power from the distribution transformer 112 may be summed together and compared to the power supplied to the LV subnet. If there is a significant discrepancy between the aggregate measured power usage data (from the meters) and the estimated power delivered to the LV subnet, a power theft may be detected”).
In regards to applicants argument that the subject matter involves bidirectional power reconciliation at the power source. In Deaver et al the subject matter involves bidirectional power reconciliation at the power source. In Deaver et al at the power source is the source that supplies power to the LV subnet of the “utility provider” that provides power to the customer premises. ([0118] "In an alternative method, the utility meters 208 may send wired or wireless communications to the utility provider or power line server 118 by another route (a route that does not include the communication device 210). In such example, the utility provider or power line server 118 also may receive the sensor device 198 data from the communication device 210, and process the data and the meter data to determine if power theft is occurring” ).
In regards to applicants argument that the power reconciliation occurs at a utility backend (not at the power source): This is incorrect. Deaver et al teaches the difference is calculated at the network device of the “utility provider or power line server” ([0009] “In one embodiment the method includes receiving meter data of the measured power consumed by a plurality of power customers, receiving delivered power data that includes data of the power delivered to the plurality of power customers, determining a difference between the meter data and the delivered power data, determining that the difference between the meter data and the delivered power data is greater than a predetermined amount, and indicating a discrepancy if the difference between the meter data and the delivered power data is greater than a predetermined amount”). Further Deaver et al teaches ([0113] “Minor discrepancies may be expected due to power line losses and power utility devices. Such a discrepancy is expected to be generally constant, and thus identifiable. Discrepancies due to power theft typically will be larger and vary over time according to the amount of power being stolen (i.e., consumed by the devices or premises that is illegally connected to the power line)”). Thus the “delivered power” is measured/calculated before the power line at the power source. The examiner notes the added reference to Chen et al also teaches comparing the total power supply of the power source with the measured power at the ports. ([0013] “In order to improve the efficiency of power supply, a known technique is to calculate the total power consumption of all powered devices and, if the total is greater than the maximum power supply of the power source equipment, power supply to one or some connecting port is shut down so to make the total power consumption lower than the maximum power supply and to maintain other connecting ports in normal operation” … “Another known technique is used in a PoE system that measures the real power consumption of the powered devices and shuts down power supply to a powered device, when its real power consumption is greater than a predetermined threshold. In such a system, in case where a powered device with, for example, only 7W power consumption but is labeled with class 4 specification, the system will lower the classification of the powered device to a lower one”).
In regards to applicants argument that Deaver et al and Mick et al do not teach the newly added limitations. Chen et al teaches the newly added limitations of transmitting, over a network (ethernet), power (Power over Ethernet PoE) and network data traffic from a network device (100) to one or more computing devices (21-23), the one or more computing devices being connected to a respective port (11-14) of a plurality of ports of the network device”. Chen et al also teaches wherein mitigating the difference between the total power usage by the one or more computing devices and a threshold power usage (as opposed to a total power supplied) by the network device (100) from the particular port comprises cutting off power ([0013] “ if the total is greater than the maximum power supply of the power source equipment, power supply to one or some connecting port is shut down so to make the total power consumption lower than the maximum power supply and to maintain other connecting ports in normal operation” [0021] “The monitoring device is further configured to shut the power source equipment from supplying power to a connecting port, when power consumption of the connecting port exceeds the upper limit power Icut associated with the connecting port, and to record each such shutdown event Ioff_event of the connecting ports and shutdown power Icut_old, which is the peak value of the power consumption at the shutdown event Ioff_event or the then effective upper limit power Icut”) at the particular port (“the connecting port”) that is connected to at least one of the one or more computing devices.
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) 1, 7-9, 14-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387 and Mick et al PN 2014/0281614.
In regards to claims 1, 9, 15: Chen et al teaches transmitting, over a network, power and network data traffic ([0004] “In this disclosure, these relevant standards relevant to the PoE will be referred to as the “PoE standard” hereinafter. PoE technology allows supplying electric power through Ethernet to devices such as Internet phones, wireless access points, network cameras, hubs, and even computers without the need of extra power outlet. Combining data transmission and power supply, PoE technology can reduce the cost and complexity of the overall network computing system”) from a network device (100) to one or more computing devices (21-23), the one or more computing devices being connected to a respective port (11-14) of a plurality of ports (11-14) of the network device; and mitigating the difference between the total power usage by the one or more computing devices and a threshold for power provided by the network device from the particular port, wherein mitigating the difference between threshold by the one or more computing devices and the total power provided by the network device from the particular port comprises cutting off power at the particular port that is connected to at least one of the one or more computing devices ([0013] “ if the total is greater than the maximum power supply of the power source equipment, power supply to one or some connecting port is shut down so to make the total power consumption lower than the maximum power supply and to maintain other connecting ports in normal operation” [0021] “The monitoring device is further configured to shut the power source equipment from supplying power to a connecting port, when power consumption of the connecting port exceeds the upper limit power Icut associated with the connecting port, and to record each such shutdown event Ioff_event of the connecting ports and shutdown power Icut_old, which is the peak value of the power consumption at the shutdown event Ioff_event or the then effective upper limit power Icut”). Chen et al teaches the differences being between the power measured at the ports and a threshold as opposed to the power delivered. Deaver et al teaches a method comprising: receiving power usage authorized to receive power (Abstract: "receiving meter data of the measured power consumed by a plurality of power customers") from the power source (utility provider power plant supplying power to the LV subnet ([0118] "In an alternative method, the utility meters 208 may send wired or wireless communications to the utility provider or power line server 118 by another route (a route that does not include the communication device 210). In such example, the utility provider or power line server 118 also may receive the sensor device 198 data from the communication device 210, and process the data and the meter data to determine if power theft is occurring”) . the at metered data including the indication of power usage for a corresponding customer ([0003] “Electrical power for consumption at residences, offices and other structures is delivered by a power distribution system. Electrical power is transmitted at high voltages from a power plant to substations near populated areas” … “Utility meters typically are located at the consumer's premises to measure the amount of power being consumed at the premises. Equipment, appliances and other devices plug into power outlets at the premises and draw power"); determining a difference between a total power usage by the one or more computing devices and a total power provided by the power source ([0143] "The power usage data from the utility meters 208 of the LV subnet receiving power from the distribution transformer 112 may be summed together and compared to the power supplied to the LV subnet. If there is a significant discrepancy between the aggregate measured power usage data (from the meters) and the estimated power delivered to the LV subnet, a power theft may be detected. The utility may respond to discrepancies, and possible power theft, in a manner similar to that described above with regard to the other configurations"), and mitigating the difference between the total power usage by the consumer and the total power provided by the power source ([0120] “In one embodiment in which the communication device 210 identifies power theft, the power line communication device 210 (or other communication device), may transmit an alert to a remote device. Alternately, if the power line server or other remote computer identifies the discrepancy (or receives the alert), the computer or server may log the discrepancy, determine the location (e.g., by pole number, street address, etc.) and provide notice to the utility provider" [0122] "Still in another alternative, the response may be to install additional sensor devices 198 (as described below) to isolate the source of the discrepancy more precisely to a specific supply line 206 and/or premises 204"). Deaver et al does not teach sending a query to read the metered data but instead only states teaches the metered data is transmitted to the utility provider ([0055] "Thus, the sensor device 115 of some embodiments may include a controller, an analog to digital converter (ADC), and a memory coupled to said ADC (perhaps via a controller) and configured to store current data. Alternately, the data may be transmitted to the power line server 118 or another remote computer for processing") Deaver et al also does not state the consumers may be one or more computing devices. Mick et al teaches ([0026] “query operational status information such as temperature and power usage of a computing device;" [0027] "For example, the RMC 120 may periodically request power usage information from each computing device and store the received information in the storage 152. The logic module 150 may then take some management action based on the individual or aggregate power usage of the devices in the rack system 100"). It would have been obvious to compare the measured power total of the ports to the total power supplied from the power source to determine if there is a power thief because this would have prevented stealing power from the source. It would have been obvious to have the power provided query the power usage information of a computing device because this would have allowed the system to control when the power usage is obtained. Chen et al and Deaver et al both teaches a power network. Mick et al and Chen et al both teach a computer network (Chen et al [0005] “In the PoE system, a powered device is connected to the network and configured to obtain or request power from the power source equipment over the network”) (Mick et al [0026] " The network 156 may be any type of network such as a local area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), the Internet, an intranet, a management-type network within a data center, or any other type of network known in the art”. Deaver et al teaches the power usage is measured by a meter attached to the customer premises (Abstract "receiving meter data of the measured power consumed" and [0143] "If there is a significant discrepancy between the aggregate measured power usage data (from the meters) and the estimated power delivered to the LV subnet, a power theft may be detected."). Chen et al teaches ([0014] “At this moment, if the PoE system measures the actual power consumption of the powered device”). While Mick et al teaches each device provides the power usage information which must be either measured or estimated, Mick et al does not use the words measured or estimated. Deaver et al however does expressly use the word measured therefore It would have been obvious to have the returned power usage information be measured by the device because this is one of the only methods to collect the power usage information.
In regards to claims 7, 14, 20: Chen et al and Deaver et al both teaches cutting off power/isolating the source. Deaver et al teaches ([0060] “In various embodiments, data from the sensor devices 115 of the system or within a region or neighborhood covered by a sub-portion of the system may be sampled substantially simultaneously (e.g., all sensor devices 115 sample within a thirty second, sixty second, three minute, or five minute time period). Such samples may be gathered at a set scheduled time, at regular times, at regular intervals, or in response to a command received from a remote computer. Uses of the measured (and processed) power line parameter data are described below in more detail”).
In regards to claim 8: Deaver et al teaches determining transmission losses and including the transmission losses in the difference calculations ([0113] "Minor discrepancies may be expected due to power line losses and power utility devices. Such a discrepancy is expected to be generally constant, and thus identifiable. Discrepancies due to power theft typically will be larger and vary over time according to the amount of power being stolen (i.e., consumed by the devices or premises that is illegally connected to the power line").
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 12, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387 and Mick et al PN 2014/0281614 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerardi et al PN 2008/0162357.
In regards to claims 2, 10, 16: Mick et al only expressly teaches sending a query/request for the power usage information but does not mention any security for the message. Gerardi et al teaches ([0056] “Generally speaking, each entity uses its private key to send a signed request, along with its public key, to the CA 411, requesting certified credentials it can subsequently use to identify itself to others. The CA 411 verifies that the signed request is authentic, i.e., truly generated by the entity that purportedly made the request, by using the public key of that entity. Upon verification, the CA 411 combines the public key of the entity with other information that uniquely identifies the entity, including the expiration date for the information"). It would have been obvious to have the requester sign with a key because this would have prevented unauthorized actors from requesting and receiving the power usage information.
In regards to claims 4, 12, 18: Gerardi et al teaches validating a signature ([0056] 'The CA 411 verifies that the signed request is authentic, i.e., truly generated by the entity that purportedly made the request, by using the public key of that entity").
Claim(s) 3, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387 and Mick et al PN 2014/0281614 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanks et al PN 2016/0337212.
In regards to claims 3, 11, 17: Deaver et al teaches communicating power information but does not mention the communication protocol. Mick et al teaches sending a query but does not mention broadcasting the query. Shanks et al teaches broadcasting a query using one of the various link layer discovery protocols ([0049] “In various implementations, the uplink metadata from compliant devices conforms to at least one of a number of link layer discovery protocols, such as LLDP, CDP, EDP, FDP, SONMP, LLTD, etc."). "). It would have been obvious to use a link layer discovery protocols to broadcast a query (([0049] " For example, with reference to FIG. I, the cloud hosted management server 112 produces and transmits a broadcast query through the metadata tunnel 160") for the power usage because this is a common communication method.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387 and Mick et al PN 2014/0281614 as applied to claim above, and further in view of Hill et al PN 6,078,981.
In regards to claims 5, 13, 19: Mick et al does not expressly teach a freshness mechanism. Hill et al teaches data coherency in which it is confirmed the data is up-to- date/fresh/current and not stale. (Column 1 line 47 et seq. "If an agent is to operate on data, it must confirm that the data it will read is the most current copy of the data that is available." "Without a means to coordinate among agents, an agent may perform a data operation on stale data"). It would have been obvious to confirm data coherency/freshness because without data coherency is would mean the system is operating on "stale data".
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387, Mick et al PN 2014/0281614 and Hill et al PN 6,078,981 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gerardi et al PN 2008/0162357.
In regards to claim 6: Hill et al teaches confirming the data is valid/up-to- date/fresh/current bus does not teach confirming the key/signature is valid. Gerardi et al teaches validating a signature ([0056] "The CA 411 verifies that the signed request is authentic, i.e., truly generated by the entity that purportedly made the request, by using the public key of that entity"). It would have been obvious to validate a signature because this would have prevented unauthorized actors from requesting and receiving the power usage information.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387 and Mick et al PN 2014/0281614 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marlin et al PN 2013/0198551.
In regards to claim 21: Deaver et al teaches determining power leakage/theft on a customer premises thus it is an allowed vs ([0113] "premises that is illegally connected to the power line") power connection however neither uses the word authenticated or verified. Marlin et al teaches ([0012] "By authenticating to such an outlet, power connection or power source, the billing account associated with the mobile device may be billed for the cost of recharging of the mobile device." and Title "Authentication And Pairing Of A Mobile Device To An External Power Source"). It would have been obvious to authenticate the power connection because this would have allowed for confirming the device is allowed to be connected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Multiple references are cited teaching Power over Ethernet with power consumption measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176