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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “injection device” in claim(s) 1-10. The three-pong analysis is as follows:
(1) “Injection device” is a placeholder with no claimed structure for performing the claimed step of sending uninterrupted Power over Ethernet (PoE) per line 9 of Claim 1 and/or redirecting network connectivity per lines 19-20 of Claim 1
(2) lines 9 and 17 recites functional language performed by the injection device (e.g. sending/redirecting PoE to connected device(s))
(3) claimed “processor” is performing the redirection, but it is not clear from the claim whether this processor is disposed in the injection device, the at least one connected electronic premises security system device, or the at least one connect device; it is not clear what structure of the injection device is capable of receiving and/or sending PoE
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular, examiner is interpreting “injection device” in light of Fig. 1 and associated [0019] which teaches that the system 100 comprises the PoE injection device 104 which comprises processor 126 (interpreted as the claimed “processor”), battery 108 (interpreted as the claimed “rechargeable power supply,” and wired network interface 120 (interpreted as the claimed “primary input port for primary power”). It is unclear from the claims that these are elements of the injection device and not elements of another device in the system merely connected to said injection device by wired or wireless connectivity. It is also unclear what structure is performing the step(s) of sending/receiving Power over Ethernet as the “primary input port” is distinct from an ethernet port capable of PoE.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The novel aspect of Claim 1 is directed to Power over Ethernet (PoE) via an injection device. The claimed injection device (nor any other claimed system element) does not recite structure that would support PoE (e.g. an ethernet port). There are generic “connections” which are not sufficiently enabled to facilitate PoE. There is “a primary input port for primary power” which is distinct from PoE (see Fig. 1 wired 120 (i.e. primary input port) and PoE 102 which are distinct connections). Due to a lack of structure supporting PoE, Claim 1 does not enable a POSITA to make or use the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: upon which system device the following elements are disposed: (1) a primary power input port for primary power, (2) a rechargeable power supply, and (3) a processor connected to said injection device. Examiner is interpreting the claim in light of Fig. 1 which teaches that an injection device 104 promises each of these elements, but it is not clear from the claims whether these elements are part of the injection device, the first connected electronic premises security system devices, the first connected device, or one of the plurality of other network devices. Applicant must amend to clarify which device comprises each of these claimed elements.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
Claim 1 lines 6-7 and 9 “an injection devices, being connected to said primary power input port and said rechargeable power supply” does not recite structure that would be required to connect to the primary input port and/or rechargeable power supply. In addition, on line 9 it is taught that the injection device is enable to transmit Power over Ethernet to connected devices, but the injection device does not recite the required structure of an ethernet port or any other element that would enable PoE.
Claim 1 lines 8-9: “a plurality of connected electronic premises security system devices, connected to said injection device as to receive uninterrupted Power over Ethernet” does not recite structure that would be required to connect to the injection device and/or receive PoE. At a minimum, each of the plurality of electronic premises security system devices should have one or more port(s) and/or transceiver(s) so as to connect to and receive power from the injection device via ethernet. See Fig 1 PoE connection(s) 102 as a required element of the invention.
Claim 1 line 10: “a plurality of connected devices connected to said injection device” does not recite structure that would be required to connect to the injection device. At a minimum, each of the plurality of connected devices should have one or more port(s) and/or transceiver(s) so as to enable the connection. See Fig 1 PoE connection 102 as a required element of the invention.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gamroth (US 2018/0314219 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gamroth anticipates the below limitation(s):
A system for premises security (Fig 4 system 400 providing service to a building; [0036] building management system may include a security system (i.e. system for premises security)), comprising:
a primary power input port for primary power (Fig 6 power source 502);
a rechargeable power supply (Fig 6 PoE source 404);
an injection device, being connected to said primary power input port and said rechargeable power supply (Fig 6 power injector 714);
a plurality of connected electronic premises security system devices, connected to said injection device as to receive uninterrupted Power over Ethernet (PoE) (Fig 4 building devices 402a-402d);
a plurality of connected devices connected to said injection device (Fig 4 building devices 402a-402d);
a wireless device connected to the injection device and at least one connected electronic premises security system device of said plurality of connected electronic premises security system devices (Fig 4 network device 406 and/or building device 402); and
a processor connected to said injection device, the at least one connected electronic premises security system device of said plurality of connected electronic premises security system devices and at least one connected device of said plurality of connected devices (Fig 6 wherein building device 402a comprises a processor 700, and wherein building device 402a is communicatively coupled t0o building devices 402b-d and network device 406) so as to redirect network connectivity of the at least one connected electronic premises security system device from wired network connectivity to the wireless device, when wired network connectivity is lost, before redirecting network connectivity to the at least one connected device (Fig 8 block 808 receive, by the first building device (i.e. connected device), PoE from a second building device connected to the first building device via a second Ethernet connection of the communication subsystem of the first building device in response to the second building device failing to provide the first building device with PoE).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights