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 .
This action is responsive to the communications filed 8/01/2024. As per the claims filed 11/14/2023:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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.
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, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seth Frader-Thompson et al (US PG Pub No. US 2015/0185261; Published: 07/02/2015)(hereinafter: Frader-Thompson).
Note: Frader-Thompson was cited in the IDS filed 11/22/2023.
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Frader-Thompson discloses a method comprising:
determining information regarding a device node of an aggregated node group, each device node of the aggregated node group having multiple power level states [[0041] this method may be implemented by the various nodes in order to determine when to switch power to or from a connected device, or when to change the level of power going to the device… After commands are checked and switches are adjusted (if necessary), the system then may measure current and voltage being transmitted through the node at step 614. This may serve as a check that the proper switching state has been achieved or, in the case that throughput is being regulated at various levels, that the proper level of current or voltage is being controlled by the node. The collected data may then be either stored internally or transmitted to devices connected on the network at step 616, for either further analysis, local or system-wide diagnostics, or any other purpose disclosed herein.[0042] Polling may be performed by the controller or repeater, a computer connected to the network, a mobile device, a remote control, a computer or server connected to the network through a wide-area network such as the Internet, or any other nodes or network connected device]
determining one of a plurality of roles of the device node based upon the information, each role having an associated power level state [[0088] the control software for the home energy network, operating within either the controller, or installed on a personal computer assigned the role of controller, automates the powering on and off (switching) of the individual nodes in the network. In various aspects, the control software and controller may further control the amount of current and voltage being allocated to each of the devices or appliances connected to any or all of the nodes in the network]
enabling the power level state associated with the role of the device node [[0041] . After commands are checked and switches are adjusted (if necessary), the system then may measure current and voltage being transmitted through the node at step 614. This may serve as a check that the proper switching state has been achieved or, in the case that throughput is being regulated at various levels, that the proper level of current or voltage is being controlled by the node… controlling the level of voltage or current being passed through the node, or other power level controls described herein] and
instructing the device node to actuate the determined role [[0041] , commands may be sent to the node in order to instruct the node to switch a power state on or to switch a power state off.].
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Frader-Thompson discloses wherein the information regarding the device node includes the location of the device node within aggregated node group [[0107] appliances and devices may be grouped according to function, physical location, or any other useful grouping. As an illustrative example, referring back to FIG. 3, a user might create a "media center" group 322 that includes a TV, digital video recorder (DVR), DVD player, video game console, and stereo system, that should generally all be switched on as a single unit when the media center is in use.].
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Frader-Thompson discloses wherein the information regarding the device node includes a set of roles that the device node is capable of performing [[0088] the control software for the home energy network, operating within either the controller, or installed on a personal computer assigned the role of controller, automates the powering on and off (switching) of the individual nodes in the network].
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Frader-Thompson discloses wherein the device node enters a lower power level state after the role is performed [[0130] allowing the system to regulate power states and/or send commands and messages. In this way the controller could ask a computer, DVR, appliance, etc. to enter sleep mode, or low-power mode, but the device could choose how best to comply with the request, perform a number of actions before complying with the request, or choose to ignore the request. In other aspects of the invention, the controller could trigger any possible reduced-power mode of a device or appliance, such that even a slight reduction in power could be realized in that mode. This would also allow the controller to "throttle" the power draw of certain devices].
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Frader-Thompson discloses wherein the device node receives power to perform the role from another device node of the aggregated node group performing a power relay role [[0039] switching may be accomplished via a switching device 402. This device may be a relay, triac, transistor, semiconductor, or other component. Switching actions may be performed either in response to a command received over the network or via predefined conditions and behaviors stored or written internally on the circuit. Switching circuitry may also be enabled to change the level of power being sent to the device or appliance, beyond mere on and off states, such that any conceivable power level may be set by the switching circuitry].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frader-Thompson in view of Avner Libman et al.(US PG Pub No. 2013/0306627; Published: 11/21/2013)(hereinafter: Libman).
Note: Libman was cited in the IDS filed 11/22/2023.
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Frader-Thompson failed to specifically disclose wherein the information regarding the device node is determined by a reflected energy device.
Libman in the same field of controlling electronic devices discloses this limitation in that [[0068] energy may be supplied and/or provided to one or more transmitting antennas. Energy supplied to a transmitting antenna may result in energy emitted by the transmitting antenna… Reflected energy may include, for example, energy reflected back to the transmitting antenna due to mismatch caused by the object and/or the energy application zone, e.g., impedance mismatch. Reflected energy may also include energy retained by the port of the transmitting antenna (e.g., energy that is emitted by the antenna but does not flow into the zone). The rest of the incident energy, other than the reflected energy and dissipated energy, may be coupled to one or more receiving antennas other than the transmitting antenna (referred to herein as "coupled energy.").]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the information receiving device of Frader-Thompson such that the information is received by a reflected energy device as disclosed by Libman. The motivation for doing so would have been wirelessly exchange node information and transmit energy in order to increase the energy delivery efficiency and support and/or enable a specific algorithm(s)(0071).
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 1 Frader-Thompson failed to specifically disclose wherein enabling the power level state associated with the role or function of the device includes transmitting an energy beam from a reflected energy device to the device node.
Libman in the same field of controlling electronic devices discloses this limitation in that [[0068] energy may be supplied and/or provided to one or more transmitting antennas. Energy supplied to a transmitting antenna may result in energy emitted by the transmitting antenna… Reflected energy may include, for example, energy reflected back to the transmitting antenna due to mismatch caused by the object and/or the energy application zone, e.g., impedance mismatch. Reflected energy may also include energy retained by the port of the transmitting antenna (e.g., energy that is emitted by the antenna but does not flow into the zone). The rest of the incident energy, other than the reflected energy and dissipated energy, may be coupled to one or more receiving antennas other than the transmitting antenna (referred to herein as "coupled energy.").] Energy must be transmitted via antenna (transmitted in a specified direction of the device node.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power delivery teachings of Frader-Thompson to transmit an energy beam from a reflected energy device to the device node as disclosed by Libman. The motivation for doing so would have been wirelessly exchange node information and transmit energy in order to increase the energy delivery efficiency and support and/or enable a specific algorithm(s)(0071).
Claim 8:
As per independent claim 8, Frader-Thompson discloses a system for managing roles of device nodes in an aggregated node group comprising:
each device node is to perform multiple roles, each of the multiple roles associated with a corresponding power level state of the device node, wherein a reflected energy from the device node used is to determine information regarding the device node [[0041] this method may be implemented by the various nodes in order to determine when to switch power to or from a connected device, or when to change the level of power going to the device… After commands are checked and switches are adjusted (if necessary), the system then may measure current and voltage being transmitted through the node at step 614. This may serve as a check that the proper switching state has been achieved or, in the case that throughput is being regulated at various levels, that the proper level of current or voltage is being controlled by the node. The collected data may then be either stored internally or transmitted to devices connected on the network at step 616, for either further analysis, local or system-wide diagnostics, or any other purpose disclosed herein.[0042] Polling may be performed by the controller or repeater, a computer connected to the network, a mobile device, a remote control, a computer or server connected to the network through a wide-area network such as the Internet, or any other nodes or network connected device [0088] the control software for the home energy network, operating within either the controller, or installed on a personal computer assigned the role of controller, automates the powering on and off (switching) of the individual nodes in the network. In various aspects, the control software and controller may further control the amount of current and voltage being allocated to each of the devices or appliances connected to any or all of the nodes in the network]
a processor to determine, a role to be performed by the device node based upon the information regarding the device node[[0088] the control software for the home energy network, operating within either the controller, or installed on a personal computer assigned the role of controller, automates the powering on and off (switching) of the individual nodes in the network. In various aspects, the control software and controller may further control the amount of current and voltage being allocated to each of the devices or appliances connected to any or all of the nodes in the network]
a communication device to transmit a signal to the device node to enable the power level state associated with the role and instruct the device node to perform the role. [[0041] After commands are checked and switches are adjusted (if necessary), the system then may measure current and voltage being transmitted through the node at step 614. This may serve as a check that the proper switching state has been achieved or, in the case that throughput is being regulated at various levels, that the proper level of current or voltage is being controlled by the node… controlling the level of voltage or current being passed through the node, or other power level controls described herein.. commands may be sent to the node in order to instruct the node to switch a power state on or to switch a power state off.].
Frader-Thompson failed to specifically a reflected energy device to communicate energy to a device node of a plurality of device nodes.
Libman in the same field of controlling electronic devices discloses this limitation in that [[0068] energy may be supplied and/or provided to one or more transmitting antennas. Energy supplied to a transmitting antenna may result in energy emitted by the transmitting antenna… Reflected energy may include, for example, energy reflected back to the transmitting antenna due to mismatch caused by the object and/or the energy application zone, e.g., impedance mismatch. Reflected energy may also include energy retained by the port of the transmitting antenna (e.g., energy that is emitted by the antenna but does not flow into the zone). The rest of the incident energy, other than the reflected energy and dissipated energy, may be coupled to one or more receiving antennas other than the transmitting antenna (referred to herein as "coupled energy.").] Energy must be transmitted via antenna (transmitted in a specified direction of the device node.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power delivery teachings of Frader-Thompson to include a reflected energy device to communicate energy to a device node of a plurality of device nodes as disclosed by Libman. The motivation for doing so would have been wirelessly exchange node information and transmit energy in order to increase the energy delivery efficiency and support and/or enable a specific algorithm(s)(0071).
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Frader-Thompson and Libman disclose wherein the aggregated node group is implemented as a mesh network. [[0083] nodes may communicate with each other, the controller, and other devices listed herein via a low-power wireless, powerline network, or any other network system or technology known to those in the art. The network topology may be star, tree, or mesh. Example wireless network standards include ZigBee and Z-Wave. Messages are transmitted in XML, CSV, or other text or binary format. Some nodes may operate only as endpoints, while others may operate as repeaters.]
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, which depends on claim 8, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above. Additionally, Frader-Thompson and Libman disclose wherein the communication device is the reflected energy device or an anchor node. Libman [[0066] Returning to FIG. 1, apparatus 100 may include at least one radiating element 102 for delivery of electromagnetic energy to energy application zone 9. One or more of the radiating element(s) may also be configured to receive electromagnetic energy from energy application zone 9. In other words, an antenna may be configured to function as a transmitter, a receiver, or both. Radiating element, e.g., antennas configured to serve as receivers of electromagnetic energy from an energy application zone may be configured to receive, e.g., electromagnetic waves reflected from the energy application zone.].
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, which depends on claim 8 it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above. Additionally, Frader-Thompson and Libman disclose wherein the reflected energy device is implemented as one or more of an optical camera, an optical phased array, an ultrasonic phased array, and a radio phased array. Libman [[0067] For example, a radiating element or an antenna may include an aperture/slot antenna, or an antenna which includes a plurality of terminals transmitting in unison, either at the same time or at a controlled dynamic phase difference (e.g., a phased array antenna). Consistent with some exemplary embodiments, radiating elements 102 may include an electromagnetic energy transmitter (referred to herein as "a transmitting antenna" or "transmitter") that feeds energy into electromagnetic energy application zone 9, an electromagnetic energy receiver (referred herein as "a receiving antenna" or "receiver") that receives energy from zone 9, or a combination of both a transmitter and a receiver. See [0130] optical camera].
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, which depends on claim 8 Frader-Thompson and Libman disclose wherein the information regarding the device node includes a capability of the device node to communicate with other device nodes of the aggregated node group. Frader-Thompson, [[0032] The nodes may communicate with the controller, any optional repeaters, and each other via a network. In various embodiments, the controller 100 may be composed of a single base station with a display, or may be separated into: a base station to manage data storage and communication, and an interface console with display, buttons, LCD touchscreen, or other control elements.]
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, which depends on claim 8 Frader-Thompson and Libman disclose wherein the information regarding the device node includes a power capacity of an on-board battery of the device node. Frader-Thompson, [[0081] other node types may include nodes that provide an interface with independent data acquisition, monitoring, or control systems, such as those that manage solar power and battery storage systems, nodes that monitor natural gas devices and pipelines entering the home or business, and other nodes embedded within appliances or devices. [0155] The dashboard may provide visualizations of the batteries' level of charge over time. The system may provide visualizations/projections about the past, present, and future balance between battery draw, grid draw, and generation.]
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, which depends on claim 8 Frader-Thompson and Libman disclose wherein a set of roles that the device node is capable of performing is determined by a location of the device node within the aggregated node group. Frader-Thompson, [[0088] control software for the home energy network, operating within either the controller, or installed on a personal computer assigned the role of controller, automates the powering on and off (switching) of the individual nodes in the network. In various aspects, the control software and controller may further control the amount of current and voltage being allocated to each of the devices or appliances connected to any or all of the nodes in the network
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frader-Thompson and Libman in view of Elena Fersman et al.(US PG Pub No. 2023/0353973; Filed: 05/12/2020)(hereinafter: Fersman).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, which depends on claim 8 Frader-Thompson and Liebman failed to specifically disclose wherein the information regarding the device node is determined through a machine learning process.
Fersman, in the same field of distributed device networks discloses this limitation in [0090] One implementation of automated collaboration connection establishment by the NWDAF 209 can be based on a graph-based Machine Learning (ML) algorithm [0165] The received behaviour information and the behaviour information for one or more other wireless devices are provided as inputs to the machine learning algorithm, and the algorithm analyses the input behaviour information to determine measures of similarity between the behaviour information for the first wireless device and the behaviour information for the one or more other wireless devices. The algorithm can identify one or more wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device as the wireless device(s) for which the respective behaviour information has a required measure of similarity with the received behaviour information.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the information determination step of Frader-Thompson to determine the information regarding the device nodes through a machine learning process as disclosed by Fersman. The motivation for doing so would have been to use machine learning processes to determine and process data in order to enable analysis of large volumes of data, reducing human error and enabling intelligent automation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (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 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.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118