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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, figures 5-6 in the reply filed on 11/7/2025 is acknowledged. Subsequently claims 5, 8-10, and 18-19 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites the limitation, “the control unit notifies a user of third information for inducing the user to disconnect…” (emphasis added). Said limitation is objected to as there does not appear to be any recitations related to first or second information, therefor creating an issue with the respective nomenclature of the information being delivered. Furthermore, the claim language presented is largely narrative and is directed towards an intended result (i.e., a user being ‘induced’ into taking action) which fails to further limit the respective structure as claimed. The limitation will be examined under its broadest reasonable interpretation. 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.
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 receiving unit configured to receive power…” in claims 1 and 16
“a processing unit configured to execute predetermined processing…” in claims 1 and 16
“a control unit configured to switch the power…” in claim 1
“a switching unit configured to switch…” in claim 11
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 1-4, 7, and 11-17 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.
Claims 1 and 16: claims 1 and 16 each respectively recite claim language stating “wherein when power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within a predetermined time from stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the control unit switches the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power of the battery,” which renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is not clear nor evident at what point the power supplied from the power supply apparatus is no longer operating to thereby cause such power supply to be considered as “resumed”. Furthermore, it is unclear what structure, if any, is required to monitor the respective “time from stop” or to make decisions based upon a “predetermined time”. It is further unclear with respect to the parameters associated with a changeover of the power supply, as it appears as though the power of the battery is only to be utilized in instances during which the power supply of the power supply apparatus has become unavailable, but then becomes available once again. That is, the claim limitation reciting, “when power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within a predetermined time from stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the control unit switches the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power of the battery,” is unclear as it suggests that the power supply apparatus is inactive in addition to the power supply from the battery also being inactive, and therefore indicates that no power source would be active during a supposed timeframe (undefined), which would subsequently disable the control unit during the supposed timeframe, thereby rending the information processing dysfunctional. The examiner will examine said limitations as best understood. The remaining claims inherit the deficiencies as presented with respect to independent claims 1 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0380968) in view of Kitanosako (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0204895).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee discloses a processing apparatus (Fig. 3, system 300 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0071 which discloses the system may be incorporated within a computing device) comprising: a battery (Fig. 3, battery string 340 and its related discussion); a power supply apparatus connected to the processing unit (Fig. 3, AC source 360 connected to the processing apparatus as shown); a processing unit configured to execute predetermined processing by the power of a power supply or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, AC/DC power supply 350 with protected device 390 and with load 392, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the load is a computer server or some other load that is to carry out its intended functionality via the power provided); and a control unit configured to switch the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power supplied from the power supply apparatus or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the AC source 360 or the battery string 340), wherein when power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within a predetermined time from stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the control unit switches the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the power controller 310 controlling the battery transfer switch 320 under the circumstances that a power failure in the AC source 360 has been detected, such as a transient or brownout condition or some other anomaly, to switch to the power of the battery provided by the battery string 340). Lee fails to teach a receiving unit configured to receive power from a power supply apparatus.
However, Kitanosako discloses a receiving unit configured to receive power from a power supply apparatus connected to the processing apparatus (Fig. 1, connecting unit 101 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0021-0022, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Lee to include a receiving unit for receiving power from a power supply apparatus, as taught within Kitanosako, to provide a standard, and well-known, receptacle for receiving power input from an external power source.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Lee, in further view of Lee, discloses wherein after the power to be supplied to the processing unit is switched to the power of the battery, the control unit controls such that the processing unit starts the predetermined processing by the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the battery string 340 to the load to carry out its intended functionality via the power provided).
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Lee, in further view of Lee, discloses further comprising a switching unit (Fig. 3, battery transfer switch 320 and its related discussion) configured to switch the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power of the power supply apparatus or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the AC source 360 or the battery string 340), wherein the power supplied from the power supply apparatus is directly supplied to the processing unit via the switching unit (Fig. 3, power is supplied directly from AC source 360 to the processing unit, read on by AC/DC power supply 350 with protected device 390 and with load 392, via the battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074).
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Lee, in further view of Lee, discloses wherein the power supply apparatus can simultaneously supply the power to a plurality of power receiving devices connected to the power supply apparatus (Fig. 3, AC source 360 connected to the processing apparatus as shown to provide power to the respective loads associated with said device. It is further noted that the plurality of power receiving devices is not positively recited within the claim. That is, based on the current claim construction, the power supply apparatus merely needs to provide a supply of power, whereas the subsequent utilization by downstream components/circuitry/loads, etc. is merely directed towards the intended use of the power via devices which have not been positively recited within the claim).
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Lee fails to teach wherein the processing apparatus and the power supply apparatus comply with the Universal Serial Bus (USB) Power Delivery (PD) standard.
However, Kitanosako discloses the processing apparatus and the power supply apparatus comply with the Universal Serial Bus (USB) Power Delivery (PD) standard (see, at least, paragraphs 0002-0006, 0020-0022, etc. which disclose the utilization of USB standards and protocols). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee to comply with USB standards, as taught within Kitanosako, to utilize a standardized and versatile power standard thereby facilitating the share of power between devices.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Lee fails to teach wherein the processing apparatus is a mobile communication device, and the predetermined processing is communication processing.
However, Kitanosako discloses wherein the processing apparatus is a mobile communication device, and the predetermined processing is communication processing (Fig. 1, load 104 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0025 which discloses the load may be a mobile phone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the respective load of Modified Lee as a mobile communication device having an associated communication process, as taught within Kitanosako, as a mobile communication device is a known device that requires power in order to operate and carry out its intended functionalities.
Regarding Claim 16:
Lee discloses a method of a processing apparatus (Fig. 3, system 300 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0071 which discloses the system may be incorporated within a computing device), wherein the processing apparatus includes: a battery (Fig. 3, battery string 340 and its related discussion); a power supply apparatus connected to the processing unit (Fig. 3, AC source 360 connected to the processing apparatus as shown); and a processing unit configured to execute predetermined processing by the power of a power supply or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, AC/DC power supply 350 with protected device 390 and with load 392, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the load is a computer server or some other load that is to carry out its intended functionality via the power provided), the method comprising: switching the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power supplied from the power supply apparatus or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the AC source 360 or the battery string 340), and in the switching, when power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within a predetermined time from stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the power to be supplied to the processing unit is switched to the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the power controller 310 controlling the battery transfer switch 320 under the circumstances that a power failure in the AC source 360 has been detected, such as a transient or brownout condition or some other anomaly, to switch to the power of the battery provided by the battery string 340). Lee fails to teach a receiving unit configured to receive power from a power supply apparatus.
However, Kitanosako discloses a receiving unit configured to receive power from a power supply apparatus connected to the processing apparatus (Fig. 1, connecting unit 101 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0021-0022, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Lee to include a receiving unit for receiving power from a power supply apparatus, as taught within Kitanosako, to provide a standard, and well-known, receptacle for receiving power input from an external power source.
Regarding Claim 17:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 16. Modified Lee, in further view of Lee, discloses further comprising switching the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power of the power supply apparatus or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the AC source 360 or the battery string 340), wherein the power supplied from the power supply apparatus is directly supplied to the processing unit via the switching unit (Fig. 3, power is supplied directly from AC source 360 to the processing unit, read on by AC/DC power supply 350 with protected device 390 and with load 392, via the battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0380968) in view of Kitanosako (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0204895) and in further view of Shih et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0305828).
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Lee fails to teach the control unit stores, in a memory, first information.
However, Shih et al. discloses the control unit stores, in a memory, first information indicating that the power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within the predetermined time from the stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus (Fig. 2, memory 224 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0023-0024, which discloses memory capable of storing information related to power parameters), and when the power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed after an elapse of the predetermined time from the stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the first information stored in the memory is erased (Fig. 2, memory 224 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0023-0024, which discloses the memory may be electrically erasable programmable read only memory.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate memory for storing information related to a power supply, as taught within Shih, to preserve and retain data while enabling accurate recovery, diagnostics, and continuity of operations.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 3. Modified Lee, in further view of Lee, discloses wherein based on the first information, the control unit switches the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power supplied from the power supply apparatus or the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the AC source 360 or the battery string 340).
Claim(s) 6-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0380968) in view of Kitanosako (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0204895) and in further view of Hayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0132673).
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Lee fails to teach wherein when the power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within the predetermined time from the stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the control unit notifies a user of third information.
However, Hayashi et al. discloses wherein when the power supply of the power supply apparatus is resumed within the predetermined time from the stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the control unit notifies a user of third information for inducing the user to disconnect other power receiving devices other than the processing apparatus connected to the power supply apparatus and, after a start of the predetermined processing by the processing unit, not to connect the other power receiving devices to the power supply apparatus (Fig. 3, step S13 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0097-0098, etc. which disclose communicating an alert message indicative of information related to a power supply of a power supply apparatus. It is further noted that claim limitations directed towards potential actions to be taken by a user is not considered to be positively recited nor further limiting of the respective apparatus claim as presented. That is, while the control unit may provide a notification or alert to an external user, the control unit or apparatus as a whole, has no ability to cause or ensure a user takes any subsequent action). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Modified Lee to notify a user with respect to information related to a power supply, as taught within Hayashi, to attempt to alert or make a user aware of potential issues related to a power supply, thereby mitigating or eliminating potential issues that may be caused due to a loss of power, power failure, or deviation from expected power in general.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 6. Modified Lee, in further view of Lee, discloses when, after the notification of the third information, the power supply of the power supply apparatus is not resumed within the predetermined time from the stop of the power supply of the power supply apparatus, the control unit switches the power to be supplied to the processing unit to the power of the battery (Fig. 3, power controller 310 for controlling battery transfer switch 320, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0071-0074, etc. which disclose the respective control, via the power controller 310, over the battery transfer switch 320 to provide power from the battery string 340. See Hayashi with respect to the teachings of notifying a user with information related to the respective power supply).
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Lee teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Lee fails to teach wherein the processing apparatus is a printing apparatus, and the predetermined processing is print processing.
However, Hayashi discloses wherein the processing apparatus is a printing apparatus, and the predetermined processing is print processing (Fig. 1, printer 1 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0059-0064, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the respective load of Modified Lee as a printing apparatus having an associated print process, as taught within Hayashi, as a printer is a known device that requires power in order to operate and carry out its intended functionalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N INGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7705. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00 EST.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/JOSEPH N INGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2836