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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that
“the subject matter of each of the designated inventions is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of each of the designated inventions would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining designated inventions. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden”.
This is not found persuasive because the restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7-14, 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/8/26.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-6, 15-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,258 to Lee. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1-6, 15-16 are generally broader than the claims in the co-pending application. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (The court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent) ; In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (Generic application claims specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claims specifying “pork”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
1. A home appliance control method, the method comprising:
requesting operation of a first one of a plurality of home appliances;
determining whether at least a second one of the home appliances other than the first one of the home appliance are operating;
determining whether a total power consumption value expected during operation of the first one of the home appliances exceeds a preset reference value when the at least second one of the home appliances is operating; and controlling operation of the first one of the home appliances based on the determination that the total power consumption value does not exceed the reference value (Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the controlling operation of the first one of the home appliances includes controlling the first one of the home appliances to not operate based on the determination that the total power consumption value exceeds the reference value.
3. The method of claim 2, comprising providing a notification from the first one of the home appliances and a user terminal when the first one of the home appliances is controlled to not operate (Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
4. The method of claim 2, wherein when the controlling operation of the first one of the home appliances includes controlling the first one of the home appliances to not operate, the method further comprising: receiving an input of an operation reservation of the first one of the home appliances; stopping operation of at least one of the at least second one of the home appliances that is in operation; determining whether the expected total power consumption value during operation of the first one of the home appliances exceeds the reference value; and operating the first one of the home appliances when the expected total power consumption value is determined to not exceed the reference value (Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total average power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total maximum power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation.
15. The method of claim 3, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total average power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation.
16. The method of claim 3, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total maximum power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, requesting and determining, in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about or manually making a request and determination. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0222234 to Hirayama.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim.
1. A home appliance control method, the method comprising:
requesting operation of a first one of a plurality of home appliances (paragraph 5, 19, “receiving the demand response request (i.e., a demand to require a response as to whether a cooperation for power saving should be made) ”; paragraph 34; paragraph 100, “Alternatively, the operations in the power saving mode in the power saving schedule may be set to be activated after the “demand response request from the electric power company” has arrived and the user has made the response “YES” to the request.”; paragraphs 103, 121, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130);
determining whether at least a second one of the home appliances other than the first one of the home appliance are operating (paragraphs 37-38, 72, 82-84, e.g., “It is also understood that the microwave oven is in the power saving mode (eco) at “off”,”; paragraph 89-93, 107, 126-130);
determining whether a total power consumption value expected during operation of the first one of the home appliances exceeds a preset reference value when the at least second one of the home appliances is operating; and controlling operation of the first one of the home appliances based on the determination that the total power consumption value does not exceed the reference value (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the controlling operation of the first one of the home appliances includes controlling the first one of the home appliances to not operate based on the determination that the total power consumption value exceeds the reference value (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim.).
3. The method of claim 2, comprising providing a notification from the first one of the home appliances and a user terminal when the first one of the home appliances is controlled to not operate (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
4. The method of claim 2, wherein when the controlling operation of the first one of the home appliances includes controlling the first one of the home appliances to not operate, the method further comprising: receiving an input of an operation reservation of the first one of the home appliances; stopping operation of at least one of the at least second one of the home appliances that is in operation; determining whether the expected total power consumption value during operation of the first one of the home appliances exceeds the reference value; and operating the first one of the home appliances when the expected total power consumption value is determined to not exceed the reference value (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total average power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total maximum power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
15. The method of claim 3, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total average power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
16. The method of claim 3, wherein the total power consumption value is based on a total maximum power consumption value of all of the plurality of home appliances that are in operation (Fig. 6B, 7, 8; paragraph 37, 83, 104-118; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the condition to occur (i.e., under the condition that the second appliance is not operating, the claimed determination of whether the second appliance is operating is negative). Therefore, the limitations which are only conditionally required based on the claimed condition occurring are also not required by the claim. ).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights