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 .
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on June 01, 2026 for Application No. 18/947,834 filed on November 14, 2024, title: “Powering An Information Delivery Network”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-28 were pending. By the 06/01/2026 Response, claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19, 22, and 25-26 have been amended, new claims 29-30 have been added, and no claim has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-30 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 11/14/2024 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/160,087 filed on 01/26/2023 (Patented No. 12,176,713) which is a CON of US Application No. 14/836,377 filed on 08/26/2015 (Patented No. 11,594,886) and claims no priority of any foreign application. For the purpose of examination, the date 08/26/2015 is considered to be the effective filing date.
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 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,713 and claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,594,886. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims are broader than the reference claims in the patents and are anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The application and the patents are directed to the same invention of powering an information delivery network using a second electric power, have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Application No. 18/947,834
Patent. No. 12,176,713
Claim 1, A method comprising:
Claim 31, A method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device of a premises, a first electric power;
causing a component, of an information delivery network and remote from a premises, to receive first electric power via a first port of the component;
comparing a first metric, associated with the first electric power, with a second metric, associated with second electric power available via a coaxial port, wherein the coaxial port is associated with the premises;
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and from an active component of an information delivery network configured to deliver content to the computing device, a request for power; and
causing, based on the comparing, the component to switch from receiving the first electric power via the first port to receiving the second electric power via the coaxial port; and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power based, on the first electric power, to power the active component.
causing, based on the component receiving the second electric power via the coaxial port, sending of content to the premises via the coaxial port.
Application No. 18/947,834
Patent No. 11,594,886
Claim 1, A method comprising:
Claim 1, A method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device of a premises, a first electric power;
receiving, by an electronic device associated with an information delivery network and via an upstream port, first electric power, wherein the electronic device is remote from a premises;
comparing, by the electronic device, a first metric, associated with the first electric power, with a second metric, associated with second electric power available via a downstream coaxial port, wherein the downstream coaxial port is associated with the premises;
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and from an active component of an information delivery network configured to deliver content to the computing device, a request for power; and
switching, by the electronic device and based on the comparing the first metric, associated with the first electric power, with the second metric, associated with the second electric power, from receiving the first electric power via the upstream port to receiving the second electric power via the downstream coaxial port; and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power based, on the first electric power, to power the active component.
causing, based on receiving the second electric power via the downstream coaxial port, sending of content to the premises via the downstream coaxial port.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-7 and 29-30 recite a method comprising steps, claims 8-14 a non-transitory computer-readable media with stored instructions, claims 15-21 recite an apparatus comprising processors and memories, and claims 22-28 recite a system comprising a computing device comprising processors and memories for sending a second electric power to power the active component. Therefore, the claims recite process, machine, and manufacture which fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claim is reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device of a premises, a first electric power;
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and from an active component of an information delivery network configured to deliver content to the computing device, a request for power; and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power, based on the first electric power, to power the active component.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising a computing device, processors, and memories with stored instructions – see claims 15 and 22). More specifically, the claim recites a method of receiving a first electric power, receiving a request for power, and sending a second electric power to power an active component. The claim recites the concept of sending a second electric power to power an active component based on the received information, which is a commercial interaction between a merchant (an information delivery network) and a consumer (a premises) – i.e., a certain method of organizing human activity – and, therefore, recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)II.C).
The claim recites a process, such as receiving data (a first electric power), receiving more data (a request for power), and sending electric power (a second electric power) to power an active component, narrows the abstract idea to a particular type of relationships, but they do not change the analysis because the claim merely recites a process (a series of steps) for governing how the second electric power is sent. Thus, the claim is directed to a method of organizing human activity – and, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim describes a concept relates to processes of collecting and collecting electric information and sending a second electric power to power an active component which is “an abstract idea” (i.e. concepts related to processes of comparing and organizing information) and similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as “Obtaining and comparing intangible data” in CyberSource, and “Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” in Electric Power Group. The mere nominal recitation of computer components (i.e., a system comprising a computing device, processors, and memories with stored instructions) do not take the claim out of the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 1 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claims 15 and 22 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The claims (1, 8, 15, and 22) recite the additional elements, such as “via a power input port of a computing device of a premises”, “via a communication port of the computing device and from an active component of an information delivery network configured to deliver content to the computing device,” and “via the communication port based on the request”, further narrow the abstract idea of the claims but do not change the analysis. Further narrowing an abstract idea of a claim does not make it any less abstract.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not include any additional element(s), such as computers or processors, that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements including a system comprising a computing device comprising processors and memories, a communication port, and an information delivery network all are the general purpose computer components as described in Applicant’s Specification (see US Pub. No. 2025/0149889-A1). Paragraphs 15 (the network 100 may be any type of information distribution network, such as satellite, telephone, cellular, wireless, etc.), 17 (These networks 109 may include, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) networks Internet devices, telephone networks, cellular telephone networks, fiber optic networks, local wireless networks (e.g., WiMAX), satellite networks, and any other desired network,), 19 (any desired service), 20 (any other desired modem device, any other desired computing device, any other desired computers, sensors, and/or other devices), 21 (general hardware elements of an example computing device 200 that can be used to implement any of the elements discussed herein and/or illustrated in the figures … to perform any of the features described herein … stored in any type of computer-readable medium or memory … any other desired electronic storage medium … any other desired network), 22 (… and the same component … may be used to implement any of the other computing devices and components described herein), 23 (or other devices to perform any of the functions described herein), 32 (power received from any port), 33 (sharing the loading and reducing a power requirement at any one of the ports), 45 (cost of power available via any of the ports may be made known using various techniques).
Applicant’s Specification does not describe how the computer components are different from the general computer components. Thus, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than receiving a first electric power (receiving information), receiving a request for power (receiving more information), and sending a second electric power to power an active component (transmitting power). Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
The independent claims (1, 8, 15, and 22) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer to perform the receiving, receiving, and sending functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 23-30 depend on claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 respectively and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the depend claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as in discussed in claims 1, 8, 15, and 22.
Claims 2, 9, 16, and 23 recite additional elements “further comprising receiving, via the communication port of the computing device and via the information delivery network, content for output.” (Additional detailed instructions about the receiving content for output. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 3, 10, 17, and 24 recite additional elements “further comprising sending, to a component of the information delivery network, at least one of an offer price or a usage limit, wherein the request is based on the at least one of the offer price or the usage limit.” (Additional detailed instructions about sending an offer price or a usage limit. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 25 recite additional elements “wherein the computing device comprises at least one of: an interface device, at the premises, configured to receive information via the information delivery network; a gateway device at the premises; or a set top box at the premises.” (Additional detailed instructions about the interface device at a premises configured to receive information via the information delivery network. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 5, 12, 19, and 26 recite additional elements “wherein the active component is upstream of the computing device in the information delivery network; and wherein the sending, via the communication port, the second electric power comprises sending, via a coaxial cable, the second electric power to power the active component.” (Additional detailed instructions about sending the second electric power to power an active component of the information delivery network. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 6, 13, 20, and 27 recite additional elements “further comprising converting the first electric power to the second electric power, wherein the second electric power is based on the request.” (Additional detailed instructions about converting the first electric power to the second electric power. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 recite additional elements “wherein the first electric power is characterized by a first voltage and a first frequency and the second electric power is characterized by a second voltage and a second frequency, wherein at least one of: the first voltage is different from the second voltage; or the first frequency is different from the second frequency.” (Additional detailed instructions about the characters of the first electric power and the second electric power. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 29 recites additional elements “wherein the sending the second electric power to power the active component comprises sending, by a gateway device of the premises, the second electric power to power one or more of: a signal amplifier of the information delivery network and located remotely from the premises; or a distribution tap of the information delivery network and located remotely from the premises.” (Additional detailed instructions about the second electric power. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 30 recites additional elements “wherein the first electric power is generated at the premises.” (Additional detailed instructions about the first electric power. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. These additional recited limitations further narrow the scope of the abstract idea and are merely insignificant solution activities which only refine the abstract idea further and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions have been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of sending a second electric power to power an active component. The claims are not directed to a new processor, network, system memory, or user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
By the 06/01/2026’s Response, Applicant’s claim amendments further narrow the scope of the claims but do not render the rejection moot. Applicant further states that a terminal disclaimer will be filed if necessary when all other rejections are resolved. In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the double patenting rejection is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Per pages 9-10 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea because none of claim 1’s features recite any commercial or legal interactions. Also, Applicant also argues that the claim was interpreted as “switching from a first electric power to a second electric power” and “switching from a first electric power to a second electric power" is also not a commercial or legal interaction.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the present analysis in above, the claims recite a process, such as receiving data (a first electric power), receiving more data (a request for power), and sending electric power to power an active component (a second electric power). The claims recite the concept of sending a second electric power to power an active component based on the received information ( a first electric power and a request for power), which is a commercial interaction between a merchant (owner of the information delivery network) and consumer (owner of the premises) and is a certain method of organizing human activity. Sending electric power to power an active component based on received information is not a technical improvement. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Further, the claims do not include additional elements (elements/limitations and hardware) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as analyzed in Step 2A, Prong 2, and do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea as analyzed in Step 2B. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the rejection is withdrawn. An updated prior art search did not identify any art(s), individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every elements and limitations of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights