DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Notification of invoking - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Claims 1 – 9 are invoking 112(f) interpretation for reciting limitations such as “a first communication apparatus”, “a second communication apparatus”, “a communication unit”, “a control unit”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” and “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to receive, transmit, switch” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-9 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification paragraphs 19-24 and figures 1-3 for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Thus, the above invoking 112(f) terms “a first communication apparatus”, “a second communication apparatus”, “a communication unit”, “a control unit” will be interpreted according to the structure definition provided in paragraphs 19-24 and figures 1-3.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US 20160132092 A1) and in view of Pannell (US Patent 11249541 B1)1 and in further view of Paljug (US Publication 20060112287 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Joo discloses a communication system including a first communication apparatus [abstract: external apparatus] and a second communication apparatus [abstract: display apparatus],
wherein the first communication apparatus includes, a communication unit configured to transmit request information for requesting to switch a Wake On Lan (WOL) function to an enabled state or a disabled state and an activation packet to the second communication apparatus based on instruction information set by a user [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function and a controller configured to determine whether the WOL function is turned either on or off according to a network setting state][0011: The controller, in response to a network setting being performed by a user, may turn on the WOL function, and in response to a network setting not being performed by a user, turn off the WOL function][0011—19],
wherein the second communication apparatus includes, a communication unit configured to receive the request information and the activation packet from the first communication apparatus [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function and a controller configured to determine whether the WOL function is turned either on or off according to a network setting state][0067: If a power-on command is received from an external apparatus (for example, a smart phone, etc.) remotely through the communicator 210 or a power-on command is received through a remote controller, for example, and from the input unit 280 while a standby mode is maintained, the controller 290 may convert the mode of the display apparatus 200 from the standby mode to an operation mode][0011-0019], and
a control unit configured to switch the WOL function to the enabled state or the disabled state based on the request information received from the first communication apparatus [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function and a controller configured to determine whether the WOL function is turned either on or off according to a network setting state][0011-0019], and
wherein, in a case where the activation packet is received when an operation state of the second communication apparatus is a power saving state and the WOL function is enabled, the control unit performs processing for activating the second communication apparatus from the power saving state [0067: If a power-on command is received from an external apparatus (for example, a smart phone, etc.) remotely through the communicator 210 or a power-on command is received through a remote controller, for example, and from the input unit 280 while a standby mode is maintained, the controller 290 may convert the mode of the display apparatus 200 from the standby mode to an operation mode][0011-0019].
However, Joo does not explicitly disclose after activation of the second communication apparatus is completed in response to the activation packet, switches the WOL function of the second communication apparatus to the disabled state.
Pannell discloses after activation of the second communication apparatus [Fig. 1, Frame processing device 110] is completed in response to the activation packet, switches the wake-on frame function of the second communication apparatus to the disabled state [Col. 3 lines 22- 24: Frame processing device 110 (e.g., CPU or FPGA)] [Fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 4-6: Since the frame processing device 110 is inactive, the packet source 110 sends a wake signal to wake up the frame processing device 110] [Claim 1: the switch is configured to, in response to receiving a new packet for the CPU, determine whether a wake-on-frame mechanism indicative of the CPU being in a sleep mode is enabled, and when the wake-on-frame mechanism is enabled, cause an interrupt signal to be sent to the CPU, such that receiving the interrupt signal will cause the CPU to wake up; and when the wake-on-frame mechanism is disabled, send the new packet to the CPU, wherein the CPU disables the wake-on-frame mechanism after (i) the CPU is powered up in response to the interrupt signal and (ii) the CPU is ready to receive the new packet] [Col. 3 lines 60-62: After the frame processing device 110 wakes up and is active, the frame processing device 110 clears the status bit so that the wake-on-frame mechanism is disabled]. In summary, Pannell discloses the switch device sends the wake up signal to the CPU to cause the CPU to wake up from inactive mode and disable the wake on frame mechanism after the CPU is powered up in response to the wake up signal (interrupt signal).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joo and Pannell together because they both directed to use the WOL function to activate the computing device. Pannell’s disclosing of disabling the wake on frame mechanism after the CPU is powered up in response to the wake up signal (interrupt signal) would allow Joo to achieve more power saving by disabling the WOL function when the apparatus is in active mode and the WOL is no longer needed during the apparatus is in active mode.
However, Pannell still does not disclose the WOL function and disabling the WOL function in response to the wakeup packet to cause the second device to become active.
In the same field, Paljug discloses placing a wireless device in sleep mode and enabling wake on LAN (WOL) function of the wireless device to enter Magic Packet receiving mode [Figs. 7: steps S205, S210]. Upon determining the Magic Packet is the wakeup packet [steps S240 and S250], disable the WOL function and restore power to the wireless device [steps S270 and S275].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Joo and Pannell as disclosed above. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paljug into the teachings of Joo in view of Pannell to avoid wasting power and unnecessary wake-on-LAN function by maintaining the power supply to that function after the apparatus has returned to normal operation. The combinations of Joo, Pannell and Paljug would have predictably provided Joo’s remote WOL activation functionality while disabling the WOL function after activation, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first communication apparatus further includes a storage unit configured to store the instruction information set by the user [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function] [0045-0048, 0067: (for example, a smart phone, etc.)].
Regarding claim 3, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 2, wherein, in a case where the instruction information is stored in the storage unit after a connection between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is started, the communication unit of the first communication apparatus transmits the request information based on the instruction information to the second communication apparatus [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function][0045-0048, 0067: (for example, a smart phone, etc.)].
Regarding claim 4, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 3, wherein the instruction information includes a reset instruction for switching the WOL function of the second communication apparatus to the enabled state at a timing when the operation state of the second communication apparatus is an activated state [0013, 0020: in response to the WOL function being turned on, may control the power supply unit to apply standby power to the communicator while the display apparatus is in a standby mode or in an operation mode.].
Regarding claim 5, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 4, wherein the control unit of the second communication apparatus switches the WOL function to the enabled state at a timing immediately after request information based on the reset instruction is received from the first communication apparatus state [0013, 0020: in response to the WOL function being turned on, may control the power supply unit to apply standby power to the communicator while the display apparatus is in a standby mode or in an operation mode.].
Regarding claim 8, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 2, wherein the instruction information includes a restore instruction for switching the WOL function to the enabled state at a timing immediately before the operation state of the second communication apparatus is switched from an activated state to the power saving state [0013, 0020: in response to the WOL function being turned on, may control the power supply unit to apply standby power to the communicator while the display apparatus is in a standby mode or in an operation mode].
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US 20160132092 A1) and in view of Pannell (US Patent 11249541 B1) and in further view of Paljug (US Publication 20060112287 A1) and in further view of Karp et al (US Publication 20160134932 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Joo, Pannell and Paljug do not disclose wherein the second communication apparatus is a camera.
In the same field, Karp discloses wherein the second communication apparatus is a camera [0234: the device service 84 may wake any subscribers of the request (e.g., smart devices 10A-10C and 10E, and/or structures 10D associated with the request) (block 256). In one embodiment, the devices (e.g., thermostats 10A, detectors 10B, devices 10C, and/or camera devices 10E) and/or structures 10D may be equipped with wake-on-LAN (WOL) functionality that enables a device to sleep until particular data packets are received at the WOL equipped device].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joo, Pannell, Paljug and Karp together because they directed to use the WOL function to activate the computing device. Karp’s disclosing of the device receives the WOL signal is a camera device would allow Joo in view of Pannell and Paljug to expand the teachings onto specific camara area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record do not disclose nor suggest the limitation recited in claims 6-7, in combination with other parent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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).
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner (see MPEP § 2123).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m.
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.
/PHIL K NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
1 Joo and Pannell were cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights