DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/05/2024 and claim amendment filed on 04/17/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12113644 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The Patented Claims and the pending claims are directed to the same general invention of a system that includes: a power‑over‑ethernet (POE) network switch (or POE network switch that provides energy/power), a controller that communicates or interfaces with the POE network switch, a rechargeable energy storage device (battery) that interfaces with or is directly connected to the POE network switch and is recharged by it, and a plurality of low‑duty‑cycle devices.
Claim comparison:
Patented Claim 1 recites: a POE network switch that provides energy; a controller that communicates with the POE network switch; a rechargeable battery directly connected to the POE network switch and recharged directly therefrom; and a plurality of low‑duty‑cycle devices configured to be separately charged via the controller, with controller logic to select between using energy from the rechargeable battery or from the POE switch based on whether the rechargeable battery’s power is sufficient to supply multiple of the low‑duty‑cycle devices simultaneously and based on power draw information.
Pending claims recite: a POE network switch that provides power; a controller that interfaces with the POE network switch; a rechargeable energy storage device that interfaces with at least one of the controller or the POE network switch; and a plurality of low‑duty‑cycle devices; wherein the controller uses power directly from the rechargeable energy storage device to the controller, then to multiple of the plurality of low‑duty‑cycle devices, in response to the power of the rechargeable energy storage device being sufficient to supply power to multiple of the plurality of low‑duty‑cycle devices.
As can be seen, the pending claims recite substantially the same elements and the same functional selection logic as the Patented Claim (i.e., the controller selectively uses energy from the rechargeable storage when the storage has sufficient power to supply multiple low‑duty‑cycle devices). The pending claims differ only in minor and/or obvious respects (e.g., wording variations such as “interfaces with” vs. “communicates with,” or “rechargeable energy storage device that interfaces with at least one of the controller or the POE network switch” vs. “rechargeable battery directly connected to the POE network switch”), which would have been obvious design choices to a person of ordinary skill in the art and do not patentably distinguish the pending claims from the Patented Claims.
Therefore, the pending claims are not patentably distinct from the Patented Claims and are rejected under the doctrine of non‑statutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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: “the controller”.
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.
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 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 failing to set forth 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 limitation “the controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 2 recites the limitation “the controller switching”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1. It is unclear what “the controller switching” referring back.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldstein (US 20170356243 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Feldstein teaches a system comprising:
a power-over-ethernet (POE) network switch that provides power; (Fig. 4, element 404; See also [0166] “Intelligent hub 404 provides electrical power to each node attached to it, either in the star network topology, or in the daisy chain network topology. The providing of electrical power by the Ethernet connections can be referred to as a power-over-Ethernet (POE) network.”; See also Fig. 7, element 710)
a controller that interfaces with the POE network switch; (Fig. 4, room controller 402, See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
a rechargeable energy storage device that interfaces with at least one of the controller or the POE network switch; a plurality of low duty cycle devices, (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
wherein the controller uses power directly from the rechargeable energy storage device to the controller, then to multiple of the plurality of low duty cycle devices, in response to the power of the rechargeable energy storage device being sufficient to supply power to multiple of the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (By disclosing, The rest of the EDUs 408b-d are thereafter attached in a daisy-chain fashion to first EDU 408a. According to an embodiment, intelligent hub 404 provides electrical power to each node attached to it, either in the star network topology, or in the daisy chain network topology. The providing of electrical power by the Ethernet connections can be referred to as a power-over-Ethernet (POE) network. For example, room controller 402 with integrated display 410 receives its electrical power from intelligent hub 404. According to an embodiment, when using POE network protocols, the supplied electrical power can be 48 VDC, 12.95 watts maximum. As those of skill in the art can appreciate, these voltage and power levels are but examples, and not meant to be taken in a limiting manner; other voltages and/or power levels can be used dependent upon the circumstances and applications. Those of ordinary skill in the art can appreciate that networks that supply electrical power to devices, such as a POE network providing power to motorized roller shades 106 are not typically configured in daisy-chain topology 206 but are instead configured in star topology 204.See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 2:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the controller switching is further based upon power draw information about the plurality of low duty cycle devices. See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178]), [0249])
Regarding Claim 3:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the power of the rechargeable energy storage device is sufficient to supply power simultaneously to multiple of the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 4:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the rechargeable energy storage device is located at least one of inside at least one of the plurality of low duty cycle devices or external to at least one of the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 5:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein, over a first interval, the plurality of low duty cycle devices draw a peak power during activating the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 6:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein, over a second interval, the plurality of low duty cycle devices draw negligible power, compared with a peak power draw or no power draw. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 7:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein each of the plurality of low duty cycle devices are at least one of: separately charged via the controller; or separately and directly connected with the controller. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 8:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the plurality of low duty cycle devices comprise one or more non-continuous duty cycle devices. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 9:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the POE network switch is configured to at least one of: charge one or more of the plurality of low duty cycle devices; or recharge the rechargeable energy storage device. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 10:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the plurality of low duty cycle devices are charged by the rechargeable energy storage device during at least one of times when the plurality of low duty cycle devices are not operating or low usage of the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 11:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein activation of the plurality of low duty cycle devices avoids a time period when the plurality of low duty cycle devices are charged by the rechargeable energy storage device. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 12:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches, wherein the plurality of low duty cycle devices include at least one of a motor, lock, light or HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) device. See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 13:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the controller is configured to obtain at least one of current, voltage, power, and power consumption information about the plurality of low duty cycle devices. See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 14:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the controller is configured to power down the plurality of low duty cycle devices, in response to determining that the plurality of low duty cycle devices are not operating. See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 15:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein the rechargeable energy storage device is further configured to at least one of: increase a power delivery capability for the plurality of low duty cycle devices to support more devices per port;be recharged with the power directly from the POE network switch; or be replaced without replacing the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 16:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein instantaneous power delivery to the plurality of low duty cycle devices from the rechargeable energy storage device exceeds a capacity of the POE network switch. See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 17:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein a first device of the plurality of low duty cycle devices receives a recharging current and relays the recharging current to a second device of the plurality of low duty cycle devices, in response to the first device having sufficient current. See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 18:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches further configured to recharge the rechargeable energy storage device during a predetermined time interval. (See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Regarding Claim 19:
Feldstein teaches limitations of claim 1. Feldstain further teaches wherein at least one of:a first device of the plurality of low duty cycle devices obtains priority to be charged by the rechargeableenergy storage device, in response to the first device having a lower charge; or a second device of the plurality of low duty cycle devices is restricted from charging, in response to a first device of the plurality of low duty cycle devices being charged by the rechargeable energy storage device.
Regarding Claim 20:
Feldstein teaches a controller configured to use power directly from a rechargeableenergy storage device to the controller, then to multiple of a plurality of low duty cycle devices, in response to power of the rechargeable energy storage device being sufficient to supply power to the multiple of the plurality of low duty cycle devices. (By disclosing, The rest of the EDUs 408b-d are thereafter attached in a daisy-chain fashion to first EDU 408a. According to an embodiment, intelligent hub 404 provides electrical power to each node attached to it, either in the star network topology, or in the daisy chain network topology. The providing of electrical power by the Ethernet connections can be referred to as a power-over-Ethernet (POE) network. For example, room controller 402 with integrated display 410 receives its electrical power from intelligent hub 404. According to an embodiment, when using POE network protocols, the supplied electrical power can be 48 VDC, 12.95 watts maximum. As those of skill in the art can appreciate, these voltage and power levels are but examples, and not meant to be taken in a limiting manner; other voltages and/or power levels can be used dependent upon the circumstances and applications. Those of ordinary skill in the art can appreciate that networks that supply electrical power to devices, such as a POE network providing power to motorized roller shades 106 are not typically configured in daisy-chain topology 206 but are instead configured in star topology 204.See at least paragraphs [0166]-[0178])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/NEHA PATEL/Art Unit 3699