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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 40 – 41, 49 – 50, 54 and 57 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 40, “…through the rapidly varying current changes…” in line 3 should be corrected to “…through . Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 40, “…to attenuate the slowly varying current changes…” in lines 4 – 5 should be corrected to “…to attenuate
In claim 41, “…to the data to be transmitted…” in lines 7 – 8 should be corrected to “…to
In claim 49, “…determine the data contained…” in line 4 should be corrected to “…determine
In claim 49, “d) a detector for comparing the load current signal with at least one predetermined level, e) a pre-state memory for temporarily storing a pre-state of the filtered load current determined by the detector, wherein the detector compares the current state of the load current signal with the pre-state of the load current signal stored in the pre-state memory,” in lines 9 – 12 should be corrected to “d) a detector for comparing the filtered load current signal with at least one predetermined level, e) a pre-state memory for temporarily storing a pre-state of the filtered load current signal determined by the detector, wherein the detector compares a current state of the load current signal with the pre-state of the filtered load current signal stored in the pre-state memory,” . Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 50, “…generate the current pulses…” in line 8 should be corrected to “…generate
In claim 54, “…or disconnects it from the supply voltage,” in line 4 should be corrected to “…or disconnects the two-wire line from the supply voltage,”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 57, “c) the current modulator…” in line 9 should be corrected to “c) a current modulator…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 57, “d) the current pulse generator…” in line 12 should be corrected to “d) a current pulse generator…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 57, “e) the transistor…” in line 15 should be corrected to “e) a transistor…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 57, “f) the current limiter…” in line 17 should be corrected to “f) a current limiter…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 57, “g) the microprocessor…” in line 19 should be corrected to “g) a microprocessor…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 38, 40 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the transistor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the information-containing current pulses" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the information-containing current pulses" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 29, 32, 41 – 43, 47 – 48, 55 – 56 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2021/0203380) in view of Bang et al (US 2022/0060033) in view of Jones et al (US 2020/0235949).
Re claims 29 and 58, Lee teaches of a transmission system for transmission of data and energy, with a) a master-module (MD2, Fig.4), b) at least one slave-module (MD1, Fig.4), and c) a power line between the master-module and the slave-module for bidirectional data transmission between the master-module and the slave-module (data transfer phase, Fig.6) and for energy transmission from the master-module to the slave-module (power transfer phase), wherein d) the transmission system is switchable between several operating states (Fig.2), said operating states comprising: a) a first operating state for energy transmission from the master-module to the at least one slave-module via the two-wire line (power transfer phase, S180, Fig.4), b) a second operating state for data transmission from the master-module to the at least one slave-module via the two-wire line (data transfer phase, S160, Fig.4 and from MD2, t3 to t4, Fig.6), and c) a third operating state for data transmission from the at least one slave-module to the master-module via the two-wire line (data transfer phase, and from MD1, t5 to t6, Fig.6); and wherein said transmission system is switchable between at least two of said first, second and third operating states (Figures 4, 6 – 7 and 10); and e) wherein the energy transmission from the master-module (MD2, Fig.4) to the at least one slave-module (MD1, Fig.4) is temporarily restricted or interrupted in the second operating state during the data transmission from the master-module to the at least one slave-module (only data may be transmitted through the power line 300 in the data transfer phase 23, Paragraph 0040 and Paragraph 0098); f) wherein the at least one slave-module comprises an energy store (Battery, Fig.3) in order to supply the slave-module with the energy required for operation during the restriction or interruption of the energy transmission from the master-module in the second operating state (Paragraph 0045). However, Lee does not specifically mention that the power line is two wire line. Lee does not specifically teach of g) wherein the at least one slave-module comprises a discharge protection in order to prevent excessive discharge of the energy store during the restriction or interruption of the energy transmission from the master-module in the second operating state.
Bang teaches of a discharge protection in order to prevent excessive discharge of the energy store (the protection circuit module 150a may perform an over-discharge protection function, Paragraph 0041 and Fig.2).
Jones teaches of a two wire line for providing a power supply to pass electrical power along with data (Paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slave-module comprise a discharge protection in order to prevent excessive discharge of the energy store and extend battery life and to avoid premature replacement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power line be a two wire line for its low cost and simple installation.
Re claim 32, Lee teaches of wherein at least one of: in the first operating state no data transmission takes place from the master-module to the at least one slave-module (only power, Paragraph 0041), in the second operating state no energy transmission takes place from the master-module to the at least one slave-module (only data, Paragraph 0040), and in the third operating state also an energy transmission takes place from the master-module to the at least one slave-module (Power and data may be transmitted through the power line in the data transfer phase, Fig.2 and Paragraph 0040).
Re claim 41, Lee, Bang and Jones teach all the limitations of claim 29, as well as Lee teaches of wherein the master-module comprises at least one of the following components for the data transmission to the at least one slave-module: b) an output circuit for generating voltage pulses on the two-wire line corresponding to the data to be transmitted to the at least one slave-module (Voltage modulator, #232a, Fig.9), and c) a microprocessor for providing the data to be transmitted to the slave module (Controller, #220, Fig.9 and Paragraph 0117). Jones further teaches of a) a controllable switch for switching the energy transmission from the master-module to the at least one slave-module during the data transmission from the master-module to the at least one slave-module, c) a microprocessor for providing the data to be transmitted to the slave module and for controlling the controllable switch or the output circuit corresponding to the data to be transmitted to the at least one slave-module (e data/pulse power controller is in communication with one or more data components 25 (e.g., transceiver (Tx/Rx)) and power components 27 (e.g., power supply, pulse power generator at PSE, modulator switches at PSE or PD, pulse power circuitry) and may control data transmissions and pulse power modulation through control of modulator switches, Paragraph 0075, Fig.2 and Figures 3 – 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a controllable switch for switching the energy transmission during the data transmission so as to effectively control the power transfer and data transmission through the power line.
Re claim 42, Lee teaches of wherein the at least one slave- module comprises a voltage detector for detecting the voltage pulses transmitted by the master- module via the two-wire line (#232b, Fig.5).
Re claim 43, Lee teaches of wherein a) the master-module and the at least one slave-module have a common electrical reference potential (T1, Fig.5), or b) the transmission system is configured as a bus system, so that several slave-modules connected in parallel are connectable to the master-module via the two-wire line.
Re claim 47, Lee teaches of a master-module (MD2, Fig.4) for a transmission system according to claim 29, wherein the master-module is switchable between several operating states, the operating states differing with regard to at least one of the following: the energy transmission; and the data transmission (see claims 29 – 30).
Re claim 48, Lee teaches of wherein the master-module is switchable between at least two of the following operating states: a) the first operating state, b) the second operating state, and c) the third operating state (Figures 2, 4, 6 – 7 and 12).
Re claim 55, Lee teaches of slave-module (MD1, Fig.4) for a transmission system according to claim 29, wherein the slave-module is switchable between several operating states, the operating states differing with regard to at least one of the following: the energy transmission; and the data transmission (see claims 29 – 30).
Re claim 56, Lee teaches of wherein the slave-module is switchable between at least two of the following operating states: a) the first operating state, b) the second operating state, and c) the third operating state (see claim 31).
Claims 34 – 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jones in view of Fleischhacker et al (US 2022/0294492).
Re claim 34, Lee and Jones teach all the limitations of claim 29 except of wherein the master-module and the at least one slave-module are configured to transmit data from the at least one slave-module to the master-module by load modulation via the two-wire line.
Fleischhacker teaches of a master-module (#602, Fig.6) and at least one slave-module (#604, Fig.6) are configured to transmit data from the at least one slave-module to the master-module by load modulation (Paragraphs 0110 and 0131 – 0134) via the power line (Fig.6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed load modulation so as to transmit the data.
Re claim 35, Lee teaches of wherein a) the at least one slave-module comprises a current modulator in order to modulate a load current provided by the master-module via the two-wire line corresponding to the data to be transmitted (current modulator, #131, Fig.5), and b) the master module comprises a current demodulator in order to demodulate the load current provided by the slave-module and to determine the data contained therein (current demodulator, #231b, Fig.5).
Re claim 36, Lee teaches of wherein the current modulator in the at least one slave-module comprises at least one current pulse generator which modulates the load current provided via the two-wire line in the form of pulses, so that the load current comprises current pulses corresponding to the data to be transmitted (#133, Fig.5 and Paragraph 0056).
Re claim 39, Lee teaches of wherein the current demodulator in the master-module comprises a current pulse detector in order to detect the current pulses of the load current (#233, Fig.5).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Jones and Fleischhacker in view of Towne et al (US 2016/0313407).
Re claim 37, Lee, Jones and Fleischhacker teach all the limitations of claim 36 as well as Lee teaches of wherein the load current is configured to show a plurality of current pulses (Paragraph 0065, Fig.6). However, Lee, Jones and Fleischhacker do not specifically teach of wherein a) the current modulator in the at least one slave-module comprises several current pulse generators which are connected in parallel, and b) the current pulse generators connected in parallel modulate the load current provided via the two-wire line differently, so that the load current is configured to show different current pulses.
Towne teaches of wherein a) the current modulator (Fig. 1) in the at least one slave-module comprises several current pulse generators which are connected in parallel (#220, Fig.2), and b) the current pulse generators connected in parallel modulate the load current provided differently, so that the load current is configured to show different current pulses (variable current source, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have current pulse generators connected in parallel so as to modulate the load current provided differently so as to adapt the current level of current signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44 – 46, 50 – 54 and 57 are 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.
Claims 38, 40 and 49 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633