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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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, 9-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0389053 to Lee et al. (“Lee”) and knowledge commonly known in the art, as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0198601 to Kuang et al. (“Kuang”) and admitted by Applicant to be prior art.
In reference to Claim 1, Lee discloses a circuit (See Figures 1 and 14 Number 100 and Paragraph 29), comprising: an interface circuit (See Figure 14 Number 250) configured to communicate (See Paragraph 123) with one or more nodes (See Figures 1 and 14 Number 295 and Paragraph 123) in a network (See Figures 1, 6, and 14 and Paragraphs 30-31 and 122-123); and a control circuit (See Figure 14 Number 290 and Paragraphs 129 and 131) configured to perform operations of: receiving charging information associated with the one or more nodes (See Figure 8 Numbers S800 and S810 and Paragraphs 79, 82, and 86); determining, based at least in part on the charging information, a dynamic power to be supplied (See Figure 8 Number S830 and Paragraphs 82-84) to an electronic device (See Figure 1 Number 2000 and Paragraphs 26-27) by at least a first node in the one or more nodes (See Figure 1 Number 295-1), wherein the dynamic power is based at least in part on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle (See Paragraphs 81 and 87-92); and providing, addressed to at least the first node, an instruction specifying or indicating the dynamic power of at least the first node at a given time (See Paragraphs 71 and 83). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose that the circuit is an integrated circuit. Official Notice is taken that the use of SoC integrated circuits is well known in the art, as evidenced by Kuang (See Paragraph 4). This has been admitted by Applicant to be prior art.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Lee using a well-known SoC integrated circuit, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of constructing the circuit in a manner that has lower system cost, lower power consumption, and higher operating speeds (See Paragraph 4 of Kuang).
In reference to Claim 2, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the network comprises a bus (See Figure 7 and Paragraphs 31 and 71).
In reference to Claim 3, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Lee further discloses that the bus comprises: a local interconnected network (LIN) bus; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) (See Figure 7 and Paragraph 71); a Control Area Network (CAN) bus; an Ethernet bus; or a wireless bus (See Paragraph 31).
In reference to Claim 4, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the electronic device is wirelessly coupled to the first node (See Paragraph 31).
In reference to Claim 5, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise circuits configured to perform power conversion and to provide power (See Paragraphs 70 and 81-86). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose that the circuits are integrated circuits. Official Notice is taken that the use of SoC integrated circuits is well known in the art, as evidenced by Kuang (See Paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Lee using well-known SoC integrated circuits as the node circuits, resulting in the invention of Claim 5, in order to yield the predictable result of constructing the circuit in a manner that has lower system cost, lower power consumption, and higher operating speeds (See Paragraph 4 of Kuang).
In reference to Claim 6, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee, as modified by knowledge commonly known in the art, further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 295-1 and 295-2), and the integrated circuit is included in a second node in the multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 100 and 295-2 and Paragraph 165).
In reference to Claim 7, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee, as modified by knowledge commonly known in the art, further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 295-1 and 295-2), and the integrated circuit (See Figure 1 Number 100) is separate from the one or more nodes (See Figure 1).
In reference to Claim 9, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee, as modified by knowledge commonly known in the art, further discloses that the integrated circuit comprises a controller for the one or more nodes (See Figure 14 Number 290 and Paragraphs 129 and 131).
In reference to Claim 10, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee, as modified by knowledge commonly known in the art, further discloses that the integrated circuit comprises: a Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub; or a head unit for the network (See Paragraph 29).
In reference to Claim 11, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 295-1 and 295-2), the instruction indicates that at least the first node is to supply a different power from at least a second node in the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 84-85).
In reference to Claim 12, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the charging information indicates: an identifier of the electronic device (See Paragraph 36); or a type of the electronic device.
In reference to Claim 13, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the instruction indicates a maximum power supplied by at least the first node (See Paragraphs 71 and 83 [a specific power to be supplied by the node is both a maximum and a minimum power]).
In reference to Claim 14, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Lee, as modified by knowledge commonly known in the art, further discloses that the integrated circuit is included in a vehicle (See Figure 1 Number 1000 and Paragraph 26), and the maximum power is different from a second maximum power available in the vehicle (See Paragraph 86 [different nodes may have different specific powers, and thus different maximum powers]).
In reference to Claim 15, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 295-1 and 295-2), and the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on power supplied by the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 38-39, 52, 79-80, and 82).
In reference to Claim 16, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on a predefined preference (See Paragraphs 63 and 94).
In reference to Claim 17, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Lee further discloses that the predefined preference comprises: a preference of a user of a vehicle that includes the integrated circuit (See Paragraph 94); a desired charging characteristic (See Paragraph 94); or a range of the vehicle.
Claims 19 and 20 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 21 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0323626 to Suen et al. (“Suen”).
In reference to Claim 18, Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Lee does not explicitly disclose that the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on a software-defined subscription characteristic. Suen discloses that dynamic power (See Figure 2 Numbers 54, 56, 58, and 62 and Paragraphs 34 and 45-46) supplied by a vehicle (See Paragraph 26) to an electronic device (See Figure 1 Number 14, Figure 3 Number 72, and Paragraphs 29-30 and 57) is determined based at least in part on a software-defined subscription characteristic (See Paragraphs 51 and 54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Lee and knowledge commonly known in the art using the software subscription based dynamic power of Suen, resulting in the invention of Claim 18, in order to yield the predictable result of providing priority for the supply of power to VIPs who have paid a fee or used loyalty rewards (See Paragraphs 51 and 54 of Suen).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0097017 to Santini et al. (“Santini”) and Lee.
In reference to Claim 1, Santini discloses an integrated circuit (See Figure 3 Number 100 and Paragraph 105), comprising: an interface circuit (See Figure 6 Number 610 and Paragraph 52) configured to communicate (See Paragraphs 36 and 52) with one or more nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104-1 – 104-N and 300) in a network (See Figure 3 interconnection between Numbers 300 and 104-1 – 104-N); and a control circuit (See Figure 6 Number 604) configured to perform operations of: receiving charging information associated with the one or more nodes (See Paragraph 36); determining, based at least in part on the charging information, a dynamic power to be supplied (See Paragraphs 27 and 36) to an electronic device (See Paragraph 27) by at least a first node in the one or more nodes (See Figure 3 Number 104-1); and providing, addressed to at least the first node, an instruction specifying or indicating the dynamic power of at least the first node at a given time (See Paragraph 36). Santini further discloses that the vehicle may be any means of transport (See Paragraphs 22 and 33). However, Santini does not explicitly disclose that the dynamic power is based at least in part on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle. Lee discloses that dynamic power (See Paragraphs 82-84) supplied by a vehicle (See Figure 1 Number 1000 and Paragraph 26) to an electronic device (See Figure 1 Number 2000 and Paragraphs 26-27) is based at least in part on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle (See Paragraphs 81 and 87-92); and providing, addressed to at least the first node, an instruction specifying or indicating the dynamic power of at least the first node at a given time (See Paragraphs 71 and 83).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Santini using the dynamic power determination based on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle of Lee, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of providing the ability to maximize the charge of the electronic device prior to arrival at a destination (See Paragraphs 81, 87-88, and 91-92 of Lee).
.
In reference to Claim 2, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the network comprises a bus (See Figure 3 and Paragraph 36). Lee further discloses that the network comprises a bus (See Figure 7 and Paragraphs 31 and 71).
In reference to Claim 3, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Santini further discloses that the bus comprises: a local interconnected network (LIN) bus; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) (See Paragraph 23); a Control Area Network (CAN) bus; an Ethernet bus; or a wireless bus. Lee further discloses that the bus comprises: a local interconnected network (LIN) bus; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) (See Figure 7 and Paragraph 71); a Control Area Network (CAN) bus; an Ethernet bus; or a wireless bus (See Paragraph 31).
In reference to Claim 4, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the electronic device is wirelessly coupled to the first node (See Paragraph 31).
In reference to Claim 5, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise integrated circuits configured to perform power conversion and to provide power (See Paragraphs 26-27, 30, 34, 36, and 105).
In reference to Claim 6, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104-1 – 104-N and 300), and the integrated circuit (See Paragraph 105) is included in a second node in the multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Number 300).
In reference to Claim 7, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104-1 – 104-N), and the integrated circuit (See Paragraph 105) is separate from the one or more nodes (See Figure 3 Number 300).
In reference to Claim 9, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the integrated circuit comprises a controller for the one or more nodes (See Figure 6 Number 604).
In reference to Claim 10, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the integrated circuit comprises: a Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub (See Figure 3 Number 300); or a head unit for the network (See Paragraph 52).
In reference to Claim 11, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104-1 – 104-N), the instruction indicates that at least the first node is to supply a different power from at least a second node in the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 27, 31, and 34). Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 295-1 and 295-2), the instruction indicates that at least the first node is to supply a different power from at least a second node in the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 84-85).
In reference to Claim 12, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the charging information indicates: an identifier of the electronic device (See Paragraph 36); or a type of the electronic device.
In reference to Claim 13, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the instruction indicates a maximum power supplied by at least the first node (See Paragraphs 36 and 47).
In reference to Claim 14, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Santini further discloses that the integrated circuit is included in a vehicle (See Paragraph 22), and the maximum power is different from a second maximum power available in the vehicle (See Paragraphs 36 and 47).
In reference to Claim 15, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104-1 – 104-N), and the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on power supplied by the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 34 and 45-46). Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104A – 104B), and the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on power supplied by the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 17 and 30).
In reference to Claim 16, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on a predefined preference (See Paragraphs 27).
In reference to Claim 17, Santini and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Santini further discloses that the predefined preference comprises: a preference of a user of a vehicle that includes the integrated circuit; a desired charging characteristic (See Paragraph 27); or a range of the vehicle.
Claims 19 and 20 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 21 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suen and Lee.
In reference to Claim 1, Suen discloses an integrated circuit (See Paragraph 25), comprising: an interface circuit (See Figures 1 and 3 Number 10) configured to communicate (See Paragraphs 33-34) with one or more nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 36 and 38, together, and Figure 3 Numbers 70a-70d, or alternatively Figure 3 Numbers Figure 1 Numbers 18, 36, and 38 together and Figure 3 Numbers 18a and 70a together, Numbers 18b and 70b together, Numbers 18c and 70c together, and Numbers 18d and 70d together) in a network (See Figure 1 interconnection between Numbers 34 and 18 and Figure 3 interconnection between Numbers 34, 18a-18d, and 70a-70d); and a control circuit (See Figures 1 and 3 Number 34) configured to perform operations of: receiving charging information associated with the one or more nodes (See Figure 2 Number 52 and Paragraphs 33-34, 45, and 49); determining, based at least in part on the charging information, a dynamic power to be supplied (See Figure 2 Numbers 54, 56, 58, and 62 and Paragraphs 34 and 45-46) to an electronic device (See Figure 1 Number 14, Figure 3 Number 72, and Paragraphs 29-30 and 57) by at least a first node in the one or more nodes (See Figure 1 Number 38 coupled to Number 14 and Figure 3 Number 70b, or alternatively Figure 1 Numbers 18 and 38, together, coupled to Number 14 and Figure 3 Numbers 18 and 70b, together); and providing, addressed to at least the first node, an instruction specifying or indicating the dynamic power of at least the first node at a given time (See Paragraphs 34, 36, 43, and 45-46). Suen further discloses that the dynamic power is based at least in part on other factors (See Paragraphs 53-54) related to a vehicle that includes the integrated circuit (See Figure 1 Number 11 and Paragraph 26), and that the vehicle may be any means of transport (See Paragraph 26). However, Suen does not explicitly disclose that the dynamic power is based at least in part on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle. Lee discloses that dynamic power (See Paragraphs 82-84) supplied by a vehicle (See Figure 1 Number 1000 and Paragraph 26) to an electronic device (See Figure 1 Number 2000 and Paragraphs 26-27) is based at least in part on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle (See Paragraphs 81 and 87-92) ; and providing, addressed to at least the first node, an instruction specifying or indicating the dynamic power of at least the first node at a given time (See Paragraphs 71 and 83).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Suen using the dynamic power determination based on a distance of planned travel in the vehicle of Lee, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of providing the ability to maximize the charge of the electronic device prior to arrival at a destination (See Paragraphs 81, 87-88, and 91-92 of Lee).
In reference to Claim 2, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the network comprises a bus (See Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 33-34). Lee further discloses that the network comprises a bus (See Figure 7 and Paragraphs 31 and 71).
In reference to Claim 3, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Suen further discloses that the bus comprises: a local interconnected network (LIN) bus; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) (See Paragraphs 29-30 and 34); a Control Area Network (CAN) bus; an Ethernet bus; or a wireless bus. Lee further discloses that the bus comprises: a local interconnected network (LIN) bus; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) (See Figure 7 and Paragraph 71); a Control Area Network (CAN) bus; an Ethernet bus; or a wireless bus (See Paragraph 31).
In reference to Claim 4, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the electronic device is wirelessly coupled to the first node (See Paragraph 51). Lee further discloses that the electronic device is wirelessly coupled to the first node (See Paragraph 31).
In reference to Claim 5, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise integrated circuits configured to perform power conversion and to provide power (See Paragraphs 25 and 28).
In reference to Claim 6, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figures 1 and 3), and the integrated circuit (See Figures 1 and 3 Number 10 and Paragraph 25) is included in a second node in the multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 18 and 38, together, coupled to Number 14 and Figure 3 Numbers 18 and 70c, together, and Paragraph 25).
In reference to Claim 7, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figures 1 and 3), and the integrated circuit (See Figures 1 and 3 Number 10 and Paragraph 25) is separate from the one or more nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 38 and Figure 3 Numbers 70a-70d).
In reference to Claim 9, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the integrated circuit comprises a controller for the one or more nodes (See Figures 1 and 3 Number 34).
In reference to Claim 10, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the integrated circuit comprises: a Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub; or a head unit for the network (See Paragraphs 27 and 31).
In reference to Claim 11, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figures 1 and 3), the instruction indicates that at least the first node is to supply a different power from at least a second node in the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 34, 36-37, 39, and 44). Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 1 Numbers 295-1 and 295-2), the instruction indicates that at least the first node is to supply a different power from at least a second node in the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 84-85).
In reference to Claim 12, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the charging information indicates: an identifier of the electronic device; or a type of the electronic device (See Paragraph 29 [USB-PD sink Request Data Objects must include a maximum operating power or current, which is a type of electronic device in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term; USB-PD sink Power Data Objects must include indicators for fixed/variable/battery supply, dual role power capability, external power, dual rule data capability, maximum voltage, minimum voltage, and operational power, all of which are a type of electronic device in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term]). Lee further discloses that the charging information indicates: an identifier of the electronic device (See Paragraph 36); or a type of the electronic device.
In reference to Claim 13, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the instruction indicates a maximum power supplied by at least the first node (See Paragraph 38).
In reference to Claim 14, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Suen further discloses that the integrated circuit is included in a vehicle (See Paragraph 26), and the maximum power is different from a second maximum power available in the vehicle (See Paragraphs 41 and 58).
In reference to Claim 15, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figures 1 and 3), and the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on power supplied by the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 34 and 45-46). Lee further discloses that the one or more nodes comprise multiple nodes (See Figure 3 Numbers 104A – 104B), and the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on power supplied by the multiple nodes (See Paragraphs 17 and 30).
In reference to Claim 16, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Suen further discloses that the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on a predefined preference (See Paragraphs 51 and 54-55).
In reference to Claim 17, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Suen further discloses that the predefined preference comprises: a preference of a user of a vehicle that includes the integrated circuit (See Paragraphs 51 and 54-55); a desired charging characteristic (See Paragraphs 51 and 54-55); or a range of the vehicle.
In reference to Claim 18, Suen and Lee disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Suen further discloses that the dynamic power is determined based at least in part on a software-defined subscription characteristic (See Paragraphs 51 and 54-55).
Claims 19 and 20 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 21 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-7 and 9-22 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.
Official Notice was taken in the previous Office Action. To adequately traverse such a finding, an Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. If the Applicant does not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. (See MPEP 2144.03 C). The Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant’s failure to traverse the assertion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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 Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights