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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 28 April 2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 102(a). Additionally, the Terminal Disclaimer filed with the amendments is sufficient to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in the prior Office Action. The amendments, however, have also necessitated new grounds of rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-20 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 1 is rejected as indefinite because it is unclear whether the combined power and data cable, power sourcing equipment, and endpoint node are claimed as part of the invention. The preamble of claim 1 recites a powered device apparatus. The specification discloses a system comprising a PSE and a PD coupled by cable 21 [Fig. 1A, para. 0045: “The simplified example shown in FIG. 1A includes a PSE node 10 delivering power to three or more PDs (e.g., pulse power tap/receiver 12 and node endpoint 14).”], establishing that the cable and PSE are separate components from the PD. Claim 1 recites a powered device apparatus comprising an input cable interface “that connects to a combined power and data cable… connected to a power sourcing equipment that is configured to provide… multiple phase Direct Current (DC) pulse power”. The claim language makes it unclear whether the PSE and cable are part of the claimed powered device or a separate component. If the former is in view, it conflicts with the specification. If the latter is in view (i.e., the PSE and cable are separate components from the PD), it is unclear how the PSE and cable limitations further limit the PD per se. For example, it is unclear how the PSE functions generating the DC pulse power further limit the PD which passively receives the pulses. They may be construed as a mere statement of intended use, and therefore possibly non-limiting. If the invention is intended to encompass the PSE and cable, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to more explicitly indicate this. The preamble should not indicate that the invention is directed to the PD only, and the body of the claim should include explicit language reciting the PSE and cable. For example:
An apparatus comprising:
a power sourcing equipment (PSE), an input cable interface, and a powered device (PD), wherein
the PSE is configured to….
the PD further comprising an isolation switch, and interface….
Similar reasoning may be applied to the endpoint node and its function of receiving power. While the specification discloses the endpoint node as part of the PD, it is unclear if the claimed PD is further limited by the endpoint node. In addition, the language “…that is to receive power from the powered device” may be interpreted as mere statement of intended use (and possibly non-limiting) for the interface. The Examiner notes that the previous version of claim 14, which employs similar language, recited “an interface configured to transmit power to an endpoint node”. This language, while not necessarily establishing the endpoint node as part of the invention, clearly further limited the interface with a power transmission function.
Claim 8 is rejected as indefinite because it recites that an “off-time of pulses of the multiple phase DC pulse power is used to verify operation of the combined power and data cable” within a step of transmitting the multiple phase DC pulse power. It is unclear how the verification operation further limits the transmission step in particular, and the method in general. The claim language makes it unclear whether the verification operation is a step of the claimed method or merely an intended use for the DC pulse power (and therefore possibly non-limiting). If the former is in view, the claim should be amended to more explicitly indicate this. For example, claim 8 could be amended to add an explicit verification step, as in claims 1, 11, and 22 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,456,883.
Claim 8 is also rejected as indefinite because it includes an original recitation of a combined power and data cable in lines 3-4. An original recitation for a combine power and data cable has already been provided in line 2, making it unclear whether the second instance is a reference to the first instance, or is establishing a second cable.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 8 with respect to the verification operation and the endpoint node.
Conclusion
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 JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 pm.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights