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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claim 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11749098 in view of KR 101206522 B1. 1) Regarding claims 1 and 11, the patent discloses “a memory to store instructions; and a processor, communicatively coupled to the memory, that facilitates execution of the instructions to perform operations, comprising: receiving data from a smart meter device located in a building; converting the data from a raw state to a physical measurement; managing energy demand within the building as a function of the physical measurement; and in response to receiving frequency agility data representing a request to modify a wireless frequency channel employed to perform uplink transmissions from a first wireless frequency band to a second wireless frequency band, adjusting transmission parameters to use the second wireless frequency band”. Therefore, the difference between the instant application and the patent is that the managing energy demand based on inference on consideration of past data and past events. However, KR 101206522 B1 discloses, in abstract, the concept of using inference historical data for energy management to assist in energy management. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using inference historical data for energy management to assist in energy management, with the motivation to enhance the energy management features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 2 and 12, see patent claim 2. 3) Regarding claims 3 and 13, see patent claim 3. 4) Regarding claims 4 and 14, see patent claim 4. 5) Regarding claims 5 and 15, see patent claim 5. 6) Regarding claim 6 and 16, see patent claim 6. 7) Regarding claims 7 and 17, see patent claim 7. 8) Regarding claims 8 and 18, see patent claim 8. 9) Regarding claims 9 and 19, see patent claim 9. 10) Regarding claims 10 and 20, see KR 101206522 B1: pages 3-4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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.
In particular, claim 1: 1) recites “an artificial intelligence based smart meter device connection system”, however the artificial intelligence features is not integrated in to the body of the claim and therefore it is unclear the significance of the smart meter connection device being based on artificial intelligence.Claims 2-10 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore: Claim 11 has similar issues has addressed in claim 1 above, and therefore is indefinite Claims 12-20 have the same issue as claim 11 due to dependency. 2) Recites “receiving data from a smart meter device located in a building”, however it is unclear what type of data id received. Claims 2-10 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore: Claim 11 has similar issues has addressed in claim 1 above, and therefore is indefinite Claims 12-20 have the same issue as claim 11 due to dependency. 2) Recites “managing energy demand within the building as a function of the physical measurement and an inference based on consideration of past data and past events”, however it is unclear what the past data and past event correspond to. Claims 2-10 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore: Claim 11 has similar issues has addressed in claim 1 above, and therefore is indefinite Claims 12-20 have the same issue as claim 11 due to dependency. 3) Recites “in response to receiving frequency agility data representing a request to modify a wireless frequency channel employed to perform uplink transmissions from a first wireless frequency band to a second wireless frequency band, adjusting transmission parameters to use the second wireless frequency band”, however it is unclear what the transmission parameters correspond to. Furthermore, it is unclear how the request to modify a wireless frequency channel employed to perform uplink transmissions from a first wireless frequency band to a second wireless frequency band, adjusting transmission parameters to use the second wireless frequency band relates to the received data, converted data and/or the managing energy demand. Claim 11 has similar issues has addressed in claim 1 above, and therefore is indefinite Claims 12-20 have the same issue as claim 11 due to dependency.Furthermore: Claim 11 has similar issues has addressed in claim 1 above, and therefore is indefinite Claims 12-20 have the same issue as claim 11 due to dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170164157 A1; US 20140351010 A1, smart meter system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685