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 .
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: configured to transmits should be written as “configured to transmit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: a first control device configured to receive in claim 1,
a power supply switching section configured to switch in claim 1,
a second control device configured to control in claim 1,
a state confirmation section configured to determine configured in claim 1,
a power supply switching section configured to bring in claim 1,
the state confirmation section configured to determine configured in claim 2,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit configured in claim 3,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 3,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 4,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 4,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 5,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 5,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 6,
the state confirmation section configured to calculate in claim 7,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 7,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 7,
the state confirmation section configured to set in claim 8,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 9,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 9,
the communication system configured to transmit and receive in claim 11,
the state confirmation section configured to stop in claim 11,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 11,
the communication system configured to transmit and receive in claim 12,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 12,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 13,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 13,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 14,
the state confirmation section configured to control in claim 14,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 14,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 14,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 14,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 14,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 15,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 15,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 15,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 16,
the state confirmation section configured to calculated and determine in claim 16,
the power supply control section configured to determine in claim 16,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 17,
the state confirmation section configured to calculate and determine in claim 17,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 17,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 18,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 18,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 18,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 18,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 18,
the state confirmation section configured to calculate in claim 18,
the central control device configured to bring in claim 18,
a zone control device configured to control in claim 19,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 19,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 19,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 19,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 19,
the central control device configured to bring in claim 19,
the state confirmation section configured to calculate in claim 20,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 20,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 20,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 21,
a second power supply switching section configured to switch in claim 21,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 21,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 21,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 21,
the central control device configured to transmit in claim 21,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 22,
a second power supply switching section configured to switch in claim 22,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 22,
the state confirmation section configured to transmit in claim 22,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 22,
the central control device configured to transmit in claim 22,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 23,
a second power supply switching section configured to switch in claim 23,
the state confirmation section configured to calculate in claim 23,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 23,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 23,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 24,
the slave control device configured to execute in claim 24,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 24,
a power supply control section configured to transmit in claim 24,
a zone control device configured to receive in claim 25,
the slave control device configured to execute in claim 25,
the state confirmation section configured to determine in claim 25,
a power supply control section configured to bring in claim 25.
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 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15-17, 20, and 23 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.
The term “large” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites “one or more power supply switching sections” where claims 1 and 9 on which claim 10 is dependent recite “a power supply switching section” and “the power supply switching section”. It is unclear how one or more power supply switching sections relate to the power supply switching section of claims 1 and 9, are they the same or different.
Claim 12 recites “all data sequences” in lines 7 and 12. It is unclear if “all data sequences” relate to the is the same or different as data sequences of claim 12. For examination purposes, “all data sequences” of claim 12 in line 12 will be read as “the all data sequences”.
Claim 12 recites “inactive values” in lines 9 and 14. It is unclear if “all data sequences” relate to the is the same or different as data sequences of claim 12. For examination purposes, “inactive values” of claim 12 in line 14 will be read as “the inactive values”.
Claim 13 recites “a cutoff notification” where claim 4 on which claim 13 is dependent recites “a cutoff notification”. It is unclear if a cutoff notification relate to the is the same or different as a cutoff notification of claim 4. For examination purposes, “a cutoff notification” of claim 13 will be read as “the cutoff notification”.
Claim 15 recites “a cutoff notification” where claim 4 on which claim 15 is dependent recites “a cutoff notification”. It is unclear if a cutoff notification relate to the is the same or different as a cutoff notification of claim 4. For examination purposes, “a cutoff notification” of claim 15 will be read as “the cutoff notification”.
Claims 8, 16-17, 20, and 23 are also rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claims that they are dependent upon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokunaga et al. (US 20150112510).
Regarding claim 1, Tokunaga teaches
A communication system comprising:
a first control device (Fig. 1 (10a – ECU)) configured to receive a power supply from a power source (Fig. 1 (30 – power supply)) via a power supply switching section (Fig. 1 (21 – Power supply relay)) configured to switch between a conduction state in which a power supply path is conducted and a cutoff state in which the power supply path is cut off; ([0023], “The management ECU 20 includes a power supply relay 21 and a control microcomputer 23, and is configured to control powering each of the ECUs 10 on/off and putting each of the ECUs 10 in the sleep mode.”)
a second control device (Fig. 1, (20 – management ECU)) that is data-communicably (Fig. 1 (100 – communication bus)) connected to the first control device and is configured to control an operation of the power supply switching section, ([0023], “The management ECU 20 includes a power supply relay 21 and a control microcomputer 23, and is configured to control powering each of the ECUs 10 on/off and putting each of the ECUs 10 in the sleep mode.”)
wherein the second control device includes:
a state confirmation section configured to determine whether the first control device is in a cutoff-allowable state in which the power supply switching section may be brought into the cutoff state, and ([0027], “a scene determination unit 231 configured to acquire information indicative of a vehicle situation and determine a scene from the acquired information, a control content determination unit 233 configured to determine control contents for powering on or off at least one specific ECU, of the plurality of ECUs 10, corresponding to the scene determined by the scene determination unit, if any; and a control unit 235 configured to power on or off the at least one specific ECU 10 by using the power supply relay 21 based on the control contents determined by the control content determination unit.” And [0030], “Control contents for each of the ECUs 10 that are unlikely to be used in a specific vehicle scene and control only units which don't have to stand by to immediately return to the normal mode of operation as required may be defined such that the ECU 10 is powered off.” Where being in a cutoff-allowable state is interpreted as when the scene is determines that a particular ECU may be turned off based on the control contents)
a power supply control section (Fig. 1 (23 - control microcomputer)) configured to bring the power supply switching section into the cutoff state when the state confirmation section determines that the first control device is in the cutoff-allowable state. ([0030], “The control microcomputer 23 further stores, for each of the ECUs 10, definition information that defines control contents for power delivery and the sleep mode for each of the vehicle scenes. Control contents for each of the ECUs 10 that are unlikely to be used in a specific vehicle scene and control only units which don't have to stand by to immediately return to the normal mode of operation as required may be defined such that the ECU 10 is powered off.” And claim 1, “management apparatus communicatively connected to the communication path, wherein the management apparatus comprises: a power supply relay including a plurality of switches provided along a plurality of power delivery paths, one for each of the plurality of power delivery paths, each of the power delivery paths being connected to at least one of the plurality of ECUs through a corresponding one of the switches, whereby the at least one ECU can be powered on and off by turning on and off the corresponding switch; a scene determination unit configured to acquire information indicative of a vehicle situation and determine a scene from the acquired information; a control content determination unit configured to determine control contents for powering on or off at least one specific ECU, of the plurality of ECUs, corresponding to the scene determined by the scene determination unit, if any; and a control unit configured to power on or off the at least one specific ECU by using the power supply relay based on the control contents determined by the control content determination unit.” Where being in a cutoff-allowable state is interpreted as when the scene is determines that a particular ECU may be turned off based on the control contents)
Regarding claim 2, Tokunaga teaches wherein the state confirmation section is configured to determine whether the first control device is in the cutoff-allowable state by performing data communication with the first control device. ([0023], “ a control microcomputer 23, and is configured to control powering each of the ECUs 10 on/off and putting each of the ECUs 10 in the sleep mode.” and [0034], “the control microcomputer 23 determines a vehicle scene corresponding to the current vehicle situation on the basis of data acquired from the ECUs 10, various vehicle-mounted devices, sensors, switches and others, where the control microcomputer 23 acquires output data from the ECUs 10, various vehicle-mounted devices, sensors, switches and others via the communication bus 100.”)
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga in view of Luban et al (US 11413814).
Regarding claim 3, Tokunaga does not teach but Luban teaches wherein the state confirmation section is configured to transmit a cutoff notification indicating to switch the power supply switching section to the cutoff state to the first control device, and the state confirmation section is configured to determine that the first control device is in the cutoff-allowable state when a completion response indicating that a shutdown sequence is completed is received from the first control device. (Fig. 3B, col. 11, line 58 to col. 12, line 14, “Block B352 includes the controller 204 triggering the low-power mode and responding to the processing system 202. Block B354 includes the processing system 202 suspending units and saving the computing state to computer storage 206. The suspended units may include any of the various components of the computer system 200, and may additionally or alternatively include various other components external to the computer system 200, such as peripherals, sensors, displays, input devices, output devices, and/or other electronic devices. The computing state, which may have been generated using block B316 of the flow diagram 300A and detected using block B318 of the flow diagram 300A, may be saved to the computer storage 206. This may allow the computing state to be recalled from the computer storage 206 upon booting. Block B356 includes the controller reporting a status to one or more components of the autonomous vehicle that are external to the computer system 200. Block B356 may be performed by the controller 204 while the processing system 202 is suspending units and/or saving the computing state. Block B358 includes the processing system 202 starting a power-down sequence. Block B360 includes the processing system 202 placing at least a portion of the computer system 200 into the low-power mode.”
Tokunaga and Luban are analogous art. Luban is cited to teach a similar concept of power management in a communication system. Luban specifically teaches completing shutdown sequence which indicates that the power can then be disabled. Based on Luban, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Tokunaga to use the completion of a shutdown sequence to indicate the power to the device can be disabled. Furthermore, being able to use the completion of a shutdown sequence to indicate the power to the device can be disabled improves on Tokunaga by being able to efficiently power off the device. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because to efficiently power off the device.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga in view of Soda et al. (US 20150062620).
Regarding claim 4, Tokunaga teaches wherein the state confirmation section is configured to transmit a cutoff notification indicating to switch the power supply switching section to the cutoff state to the first control device, and ([0030], “The control microcomputer 23 further stores, for each of the ECUs 10, definition information that defines control contents for power delivery and the sleep mode for each of the vehicle scenes. Control contents for each of the ECUs 10 that are unlikely to be used in a specific vehicle scene and control only units which don't have to stand by to immediately return to the normal mode of operation as required may be defined such that the ECU 10 is powered off.” And claim 1, “management apparatus communicatively connected to the communication path, wherein the management apparatus comprises: a power supply relay including a plurality of switches provided along a plurality of power delivery paths, one for each of the plurality of power delivery paths, each of the power delivery paths being connected to at least one of the plurality of ECUs through a corresponding one of the switches, whereby the at least one ECU can be powered on and off by turning on and off the corresponding switch; a scene determination unit configured to acquire information indicative of a vehicle situation and determine a scene from the acquired information; a control content determination unit configured to determine control contents for powering on or off at least one specific ECU, of the plurality of ECUs, corresponding to the scene determined by the scene determination unit, if any; and a control unit configured to power on or off the at least one specific ECU by using the power supply relay based on the control contents determined by the control content determination unit.” Where being in a cutoff-allowable state is interpreted as when the scene is determines that a particular ECU may be turned off based on the control contents)
Tokunaga does not teach but Soda teaches the state confirmation section is configured to determine that the first control device is in the cutoff-allowable state when a completion time required to complete a shutdown sequence has elapsed after receiving an acknowledgment response including completion time information indicating the completion time from the first control device after transmitting the cutoff notification. ([0007], “when a shutdown sequence is performed on a controller side, it is necessary to shut down a lot of complicated systems such as a memory, in specific order. Therefore, time necessary for the shutdown sequence is estimated, and this necessary time is set in a power supply OFF timer.” And [0049], “ The controller 201 also outputs the control signal 1 to the power-supply control unit 301, upon completing the shutdown sequence.”)
Tokunaga and Soda are analogous art. Soda is cited to teach a similar concept of power management. Soda specifically teaches using a completion timer to determine the amount of time it takes to complete the shutdown sequence and then initiate power off. Based on Soda, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Tokunaga to use a shutdown a completion timer to initiate the disabling of power. Furthermore, being able to a shutdown a completion timer to initiate the disabling of power improves on Tokunaga by being able to efficiently power off the device. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because to efficiently power off the device.
Regarding claim 5, Tokunaga teaches wherein the state confirmation section is configured to transmits an acknowledgment response to the first control device upon receiving a sleep notification indicating a transition to a sleep state from the first control device, and (Figs. 1 and 2, [0010], “the management apparatus determines, for each of the ECUs, whether or not the ECU needs to be supplied with power and whether or not the ECU is allowed to transition to the sleep mode based on the scene specified as a function of the vehicle situation and then powers on/off the ECU and/or causes the ECU to transition to the sleep mode.” And [0030], “ definition information that defines control contents for power delivery and the sleep mode for each of the vehicle scenes. Control contents for each of the ECUs 10 that are unlikely to be used in a specific vehicle scene and control only units which don't have to stand by to immediately return to the normal mode of operation as required may be defined such that the ECU 10 is powered off. It takes a certain amount of time for such powered-off ECUs to return to the normal mode of operation from when being powered on again. Therefore, control contents for each of the ECUs 10 that have to return to the normal mode of operation immediately depending upon situations may be defined such that the ECU 10 is put in the sleep mode”)
Tokunaga does not teach but Soda teaches the state confirmation section is configured to determine that the first control device is in the cutoff-allowable state when a completion response indicating that a shutdown sequence is completed is received from the first control device after transmitting the acknowledgment response. ([0007], “when a shutdown sequence is performed on a controller side, it is necessary to shut down a lot of complicated systems such as a memory, in specific order. Therefore, time necessary for the shutdown sequence is estimated, and this necessary time is set in a power supply OFF timer.” And [0049], “ The controller 201 also outputs the control signal 1 to the power-supply control unit 301, upon completing the shutdown sequence.”)
Tokunaga and Soda are analogous art. Soda is cited to teach a similar concept of power management. Soda specifically teaches using a completion timer to determine the amount of time it takes to complete the shutdown sequence and then initiate power off. Based on Soda, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Tokunaga to use a shutdown a completion timer to initiate the disabling of power. Furthermore, being able to a shutdown a completion timer to initiate the disabling of power improves on Tokunaga by being able to efficiently power off the device. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because to efficiently power off the device.
As to claim 6, Tokunaga and Soda teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claims 1 and 4.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga in view of Kishigami (US 20150286272)
Regarding claim 9, Tokunaga does not teach Kishigami teaches wherein the state confirmation section is configured to transmit a pre-notification message to the first control device indicating that the power supply switching section will be brought into the cutoff state before bringing the power supply switching section into the cutoff state, and the state confirmation section is configured to determine to be in the cutoff-allowable state when a preset shutdown processing required time, which is a time required for the first control device to execute shutdown processing, has elapsed after transmitting the pre-notification message. ([0037], “at S110, the CPU of the microcomputer 26 determines whether or not the subject node (the ECU 2 or the DCM 3 performing this state transition process) is permitted to transition to the sleep mode. Specifically, when the process for implementing the function assigned to the subject node is not required in the present condition, the CPU determines that the subject node is permitted to the sleep mode.” [0039, 42], “When the subject node is permitted to transition to the sleep mode (YES at S110), the process proceeds to S120. At S120, the CPU sends a transition-permitted notice frame via the CAN controller 22 indicating that the transition to the sleep mode is permitted. The transition-permitted notice frame is one kind of the transition availability notice frame. At S140, the CPU waits for the predetermined time period corresponding to the sending cycle of the transition availability notice frame, … At S160, the operation mode of the subject node transitions to the sleep mode, and this process is ended.”)
Tokunaga and Kishigami are analogous art. Kishigami is cited to teach a similar concept of power management. Kishigami specifically teaches using pre-notification signal before initiating a power cutoff. Based on Kishigami, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Tokunaga to initiate a prenotification signal before the disabling of power. Furthermore, being able to initiate a prenotification signal before the disabling of power improves on Tokunaga by being able to efficiently power off the device. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because to efficiently power off the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11, 14, and 16-25 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.
Claim 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p.
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.
/CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 May 1, 2026
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights