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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Per Claim 1, in line 3, “chord” should be amended to “cord”.
Per Claim 1, the limitation of line 4 should be removed as it does not further limit the claim since it is only stating what the power connector strip “further comprises”, which the initial line already establishes with the word “comprising”.
Per Claim 3, in line 6, “trip” should read “strip”.
With respect to Claim 8, per MPEP 608.01(m), reference numerals within a claim need to be enclosed with parentheses.
Claims 3-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because multiple dependent claims should: 1. refer to other claims in the alternative only (Claim 3 refers to both claim 2 and claim 1) and 2. cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (Claims 9 and 10 both depend from multiple dependent claim 3). See MPEP § 608.01(n).
- The Examiner suggests amending claim 3 to remove the direct recitation to claim 1, since claim 1 is already incorporated into claim 2, and claim 3 incorporates the limitations from claim 2 (“as defined in the preceding claim”).
- Implementing this suggestion, Claim 3, lines 4-6, should read:
“a) initial configuration, by a user (121) through the on-site computer (107), of the following parameters in the programmable control unit:”
In order to practice compact prosecution, claims 3-10 will still be treated on the merits with the interpretation of claim 3 being made as though the above suggestion were implemented.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “characterized in that” is indefinite since it is generally used to describe a quality of something, however, it is unclear if the original component actually comprises the limitations.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation should be removed entirely as detailed in the above claim objection.
With respect to claims 2-8 the language “characterized in that” should be amended to recite “wherein”.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, further amendments are suggested below in the 101 rejection.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because it incorporates the system of claim 2 (which itself incorporates the power connector strip 102 already), and then further directly incorporates the power connector strip of claim 1, “comprised in the power connector trip (102) as defined in claim 1”. Therefore, as currently recited, it is unclear if there are two different power connector strips.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9 and 10 are directed to non-statutory intangible embodiments. In view of Applicant’s claiming a “computer program….comprising instructions” and a “computer readable medium….comprises instructions”, the computer program and computer readable medium are each not limited to tangible embodiments since the Specification is devoid of any teachings of tangible embodiments with respect to these limitations.
The Examiner suggests making the following amendments to overcome this rejection:
Claim 9: A computer program product tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium, wherein the computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of any one of claims 3-8.
Claim 10: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of any one of claims 3-8.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koeninger, U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0033923 in view of Frei et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0006660.
Per Claim 1, Koeninger discloses:
a power connector strip (102) (Paragraph 28, Fig. 5; “smart connector or constant connection unit 500”) comprising:
at least two identical power sockets (103) (Paragraph 29; AC plugs 537);
a power chord (108) (Paragraph 29; “The AC cord 515 connects to an AC wall outlet and/or optional auxiliary UPS 545.”); characterized in that the power connector strip further comprises:
at least two local area network ports (104) (Paragraph 29; “Two wired-Ethernet ports 505”);
a programmable control unit (microprocessor system 501), comprising an internal real time clock (Paragraphs 21 and 22; A time switch under program control utilizes a RTC for tracking timed events.);
a data storage unit (Paragraph 28; “Microprocessor system 201 stores an embedded Linux operating system as well as the firmware which performs the monitoring and tests which the system performs.”);
an internal thermometer (Paragraph 30; temperature sensor 527);
and the programmable control unit is configured to check internet connectivity of any devices connected thereto in at least one of said at least two identical power sockets (103) (Paragraphs 13-18; Internet connection tests are run to determine when an internet outage from the modem 533 or router 535 is present. Said devices are connected to the AC plugs 537, Figure 5).
Koeninger further teaches that the flow diagrams of Figures 1-4 are “programmed into the smart connector”, but doesn’t specifically teach wherein the programmable control unit is configured to be programmable by a computational unit through one of the local area network ports (104).
However, Frei teaches a web-enabled power strip (interfacing device 200) that can monitor energy usage of a device coupled to the power strip (Paragraph 98). Frei further teaches that the interfacing device 200 can be configured/programmed by a user (via a computing device) connected to the interface device via a network connection, such as an Ethernet port 214 (Paragraphs 94-97).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure/program the microprocessor of Koeninger via a remote connection, as taught by Frei because it offers centralized control of the smart power strip by a user in order to configure the device with user selected rules (Frei; Paragraph 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (Claim 1), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (Claim 1) and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming the Claim Objections and 112(b) rejections of claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No combination of the prior art specifically teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 2 when considered in combination with the power connector strip as defined in claim 1.
- Claims 3-10 inherit the allowable subject matter of Claim 2
Note: While Claims 3-10 inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 2, they each require correction to overcome any objections/rejections outlined above prior to being considered allowable.
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175