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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --POWER CABLE PROVIDING POWER AND DATA SIGNALS TO AT LEAST ONE ELECTRICAL DEVICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM USING THE SAME--.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-30 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 28 line 9, the word “(10;” should read --(10);--. Claims 29-30 include all the limitations of clam 28 and are objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 16-17, 20-21, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsao et al. (10,084,266).
With regard to claim 16, Tsao teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “A power cable 1 for an electrical device 3, comprising: a plug 11; and a functional unit 12; wherein the plug 11 comprises: a first group of contacts (contacts connected between sink end 3 and the power cable described in column 4 lines 57-63) for supplying energy to the electrical device; and a second group of contacts (contacts connected between sink end 3 and the communication cable described in column 4 lines 57-63) for data transfer between the power cable 1 and the electrical device 3; wherein the functional unit 12 has a first interface for data exchange between the electrical device 3 and the functional unit 12”.
With regard to claim 17, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “wherein the first interface of the functional unit 12 is a wired interface”.
With regard to claim 20, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “wherein an electrical connection is disposed between the plug 11 and the functional unit 12 and wherein the electrical connection is a cable 13 or a printed circuit board”.
With regard to claim 21, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “wherein the functional unit 12 is disposed on, or in, the power cable 1”.
With regard to claim 24, Tsao teaches: “…the power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “An electrical device 3 which is connectable to” the power cable 1 “comprising: a mechanical interface (where 1 connects with 3 in figure 1) for receiving the plug 11 of the power cable 1”.
With regard to claim 26, Tsao teaches: “The electrical device as claimed in claim 24”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “wherein the electrical device 3 has electronics which are connectable to the plug 11 of the power cable 1”.
With regard to claim 27, Tsao teaches: “The electrical device as claimed in claim 26”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “wherein an electrical connection is disposed between the mechanical interface and the electronics of the electrical device 3”.
With regard to claim 28, Tsao teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “A system, comprising: a power cable 1 for an electrical device 3, wherein the power cable 1 comprises: a plug 11; and a functional unit 12; wherein the plug 11 comprises: a first group of contacts (contacts connected between sink end 3 and the power cable described in column 4 lines 57-63) for supplying energy to the electrical device 3; and a second group of contacts (contacts connected between sink end 3 and the communication cable described in column 4 lines 57-63) for data transfer between the power cable 1 and the electrical device 3; wherein the functional unit 12 has a first interface 13 for data exchange between the electrical device 3 and the functional unit 12; a first electrical device 3 which is connectable to the power cable 1, wherein the first electrical device 3 comprises: a mechanical interface (where 1 connects with 3 in figure 1) for receiving the plug 11 of the power cable (1); a second electrical device 2; wherein communication between the power cable 1 and the first electrical device 3 is performed by the first interface 13 of the functional unit 12 of the power cable 1 and wherein communication between the power cable 1 and the second electrical device 2 is performed by a second interface (where 1 connects to 2 in figure 12) of the functional unit 12 of the power cable 1”.
With regard to claim 29, Tsao teaches: “The system as claimed in claim 28”, as shown above.
Tsao also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 4 lines 57-63: “wherein the communication between the power cable 1 and the first electrical device 3 is performed by a wired connection”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 18-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao et al. (10,084,266).
With regard to claim 18, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao does not specifically teach: “wherein the first group comprises a number of contacts from one to four”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a range of between one and four contacts in the first group, since Tsao teaches the first group of contacts transmitting power, which would require at least one contact. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 19, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao does not specifically teach: “wherein the second group comprises a number of contacts from one to four”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a range of between one and four contacts in the second group, since Tsao teaches the second group of contacts transmitting data, which would require at least one contact. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 25, Tsao teaches: “The electrical device as claimed in claim 24”, as shown above.
Tsao does not teach: “wherein the electrical device is a power tool”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide power to a power tool, since the patented structure provides power to an electrical device. Selecting a specific electrical device would amount to a recitation of the intended use of the patented invention, without resulting in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by Tsao, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 22-23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao et al. (10,084,266) in view of Ma et al. (2019/0074638).
With regard to claim 22, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao does not teach: “wherein the functional unit has a second interface for wireless communication with a further electrical device”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ma teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught in paragraph 181: “wherein the functional unit 102 has a second interface 104 for wireless communication with a further electrical device (network described in paragraph 181)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ma with the invention of Tsao in order to allow a user remote access to control of the cable (Ma, paragraph 181).
With regard to claim 23, Tsao teaches: “The power cable as claimed in claim 16”, as shown above.
Tsao does not teach: “wherein the functional unit has a transmit unit and a receive unit for wireless communication with a further electrical device”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ma teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught in paragraphs 18 and 181: “wherein the functional unit 102 has a transmit unit and a receive unit (both taught in paragraph 18) for wireless communication with a further electrical device (network described in paragraph 181)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ma with the invention of Tsao in order to allow a user remote access to control of the cable (Ma, paragraph 181).
With regard to claim 30, Tsao teaches: “The system as claimed in claim 28”, as shown above.
Tsao does not teach: “wherein the communication between the power cable and the second electrical device is performed wirelessly”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ma teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught in paragraph 181: “wherein the communication between the power cable 1 and the second electrical device (network described in paragraph 181) is performed wirelessly”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ma with the invention of Tsao in order to allow a user remote access to control of the cable (Ma, paragraph 181).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights