DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on
01/10/2025 for application number 18/993,027. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the
following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS, Claims, and Preliminary Amendment.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the PCT application filed on July 21, 2022.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/10/2025, for application number 18/993,027 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1-16 have been amended and Claims 17-20 have been introduced into the instant application. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 8 recites “a power module configured to directly supply the drive module in the work mode,” and should instead read “a power module configured to directly supply power to the drive module in the work mode” (emphasis added).
Paragraphs 10, 24, 27, 32 and 33 recite similar language and are objected to accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “configured to supply the power module in the work mode, and to supply the network interface but not the power module in the sleep mode,” and should instead read “configured to supply power to the power module in the work mode, and to supply power to the network interface but not the power module in the sleep mode” (emphasis added).
Claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19 recite similar language and are objected to accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-20 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
In Claim 1, such limitations are:
“a drive module configured to drive an industrial appliance”
“a network interface configured to communicate with an external network”
“a power module configured to directly supply…”
Claims 2-8 and 11 depend on Claim 1, but do not provide additional structural support for the “drive module,’’ “network interface,” or “power module” of Claim 1.
Claim 9 recites a safety controller as structural support for the “network interface,” but does not provide additional structural support for the “drive module” or the “power module” of Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites processing circuitry as structural support for the “network interface,” but does not provide additional structural support for the “drive module” or the “power module” of Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites additional limitations regarding the term “power module” but does not provide sufficient structure to perform the recited functions.
In Claim 12, such limitations are:
“a drive module for driving an industrial appliance”
“a network interface for communicating…”
“a power module for directly supplying…”
Claims 13-15 depend on Claim 12, but do not provide additional structural support for the “drive module,’’ “network interface,” or “power module” of Claim 12.
In Claim 16, such limitations are:
“a drive module configured to drive an industrial appliance”
“a network interface configured to communicate…”
“a power module configured to directly supply…”
Claim 17 recites additional limitations regarding the term “power module” but does not provide sufficient structure to perform the recited functions.
Claims 17-20 depend on Claim 2, but do not provide additional structural support for the “drive module,’’ “network interface,” or “power module” of Claim 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “drive module,” paragraph 22 of the specification defines a “drive module” as being equipped with suitable components, such as analog voltage converters or solid-state power electronic components, so as to generate a signal. As such, in light of the specification, the structure of the “drive module” of Claims 1-20 is interpreted as a module consisting of either analog voltage converters or solid-state electronic components.
Regarding the term “network interface,” paragraph 19 of the specification defines a “network interface” as having a safety controller (e.g. a programmable processor). Paragraph 19 also defines a “network interface” as having processing circuitry. As such, in light of the specification, the structure of the “network interface” of Claims 1-8, and 11-20 is interpreted as an interface having at least a programmable processor and processing circuitry.
Regarding the term “power module,” the specification fails to disclose any structure for
performing the claimed functions. As such, in light of the specification, the structure of the “power module” of Claims 1-20 is interpreted as any unit or structure implemented in either software, hardware, or any combination of the two, having the at least minimum capability of carrying out the claim limitations disclosed.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose any structure associated with the term “power module.”
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 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.
Claim limitation “power module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose any structure associated with the term “power module.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN (US 2006/0133412 A1) in view of CHEN et al. (US 2010/0125726 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, CALLAGHAN discloses:
An industrial controller [industrial controller 1000, FIG. 10, par. 65], the industrial controller comprising:
a drive module configured to drive an industrial appliance [processing module 1010 (i.e. drive module) executes programs associated with actuators (i.e. an industrial appliance) through I/O module 1030, par. 66].
and a network interface configured to communicate with an external network [integration component 1050 (i.e. network interface) provides a network interface that interfaces with integration servers (i.e. communicate with an external network), par. 67].
CALLAGHAN does not explicitly disclose An industrial controller operable in a work mode and a sleep mode; a power module configured to directly supply the drive module in the work mode, wherein a power switch connected to an input power source and configured to supply the power module in the work mode, and to supply the network interface but not the power module in the sleep mode.
However, in the analogous art of suspend and resume modes, CHEN teaches:
A controller [processing module 108, FIG. 1] operable in a work mode and a sleep mode [processing module 108 operates in both during an active mode (i.e. work mode, par. 15) and a sleep mode (i.e. sleep mode, par. 14)],
a power module configured to directly supply a module in the work mode [power module 102 (i.e. power module) provides power to thin client 1 (and thus processing module 108, FIG. 1; i.e. a module) during active mode; processing module 108 (i.e. a module) is part of thin client host 1, FIG. 1, par. 14,
wherein a power switch connected to an input power source and configured to supply the power module in the work mode [power switch 106 (i.e. power switch) is electrically connected (i.e. must have an input power source to derive electricity from in order to be electrically connected) to the power module 102 during the active mode (i.e. work mode), par. 16],
and to supply a network interface [network module 104 (i.e. network interface) generates wakeup interrupt 107 while the thin client host is in sleep mode, par. 14; network module must be supplied in order to generate] but not the power module in the sleep mode [The power switch 106 is electrically connected to the power module 102 during the active mode and is electrically connected to the processing module 108 (network module 104 is connected to processing module and generated wakeup interrupt while in sleep mode, par. 14) during the sleep mode, par. 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN and CHEN before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate providing power in an active mode and not providing power in a sleep mode as taught by CHEN into the controller as disclosed by CALLAGHAN to accomplish the wakeup mechanism in a thin client [CHEN par. 5].
Regarding Claim 4, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CHEN further teaches wherein the power switch is configured to not supply the network interface in the work mode [The power switch 106 is electrically connected to the power module 102 during the active mode and is electrically connected to the processing module 108 during the sleep mode (a switch cannot be in both possible positions at the same time. Thus, while in the active mode, power switch is not also connected to the processing module connected to the network module; i.e. not supply the network interface in the work mode), par. 16].
Regarding Claim 6, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CHEN further teaches wherein the power switch is configured to directly connect the power module to the input power source in the work mode [The power switch 106 is electrically connected to the power module 102 during the active mode (i.e. work mode, must have an input power source to derive electricity from in order to be electrically connected), par. 16].
Regarding Claim 7, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CHEN further teaches wherein the power switch is configured to selectively operate in work mode or sleep mode in accordance with an indication [The processing module 108 switches the power switch 106 from the processing module 108 to the power module 102 while performing wakeup process 109 in response to receiving wakeup interrupt 107 (i.e. power switch operating in work mode in accordance with an indication), p. 14-15; The power switch 106 is electrically connected to the processing module 108 when the thin client host is in the sleep mode (i.e. operating differently in a sleep mode), p. 14].
Regarding Claim 16, CALLAGHAN discloses a computer program comprising instructions [computer 1112 containing processing unit 1114 and system memory 1116, FIG. 11, par. 69; system memory contains routines (i.e. program), par. 71].
The remainder of Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of ATKINSON et al. (US 6,760,850 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1.
CALLAGHAN further discloses wherein the network interface comprises: a data connection towards the external network [integration component 1050 (i.e. network interface) provides data along with integrated and plug in applications and/or protocols that interface with business systems, integration servers and/or databases (i.e. data connection towards the external network), p. 67].
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach a power connection, separate from the data connection, towards the power switch.
However, in the analogous art of monitoring remote activities, ATKINSON teaches a power connection, separate from the data connection, towards a power switch [wakeup device 218 (wakeup device is NIC, Column 8 Line 50) is connected to power source through switch 322, Column 8 Lines 6-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and ATKINSON before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the network interface comprising a data connection and a separate power connection towards a power switch as taught by ATKINSON into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to provide a means for extending battery life [ATKINSON Column 5 Lines 19-21].
Regarding Claim 3, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach wherein the power module is configured to directly supply the network interface in the work mode.
However, ATKINSON teaches wherein the power module is configured to directly supply the network interface in a mode [NIC 218 is directly connected to main power supply 306 (i.e. a power module), FIG. 3; power is supplied to main power supply when power management controller 320 closes switch 304, Column 7 Lines 43-49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and ATKINSON before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a power module directly supplying a network interface in a mode as taught by ATKINSON into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to provide a means for extending battery life [ATKINSON Column 5 Lines 19-21].
Regarding Claim 5, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach wherein the power switch is configured to supply the network interface in the work mode.
However, in the analogous art of monitoring remote activities, ATKINSON teaches wherein a power switch is configured to supply a network interface in a work mode [switch 322 (i.e. power switch) is closed and allows power to flow to NIC 218 (i.e. supply a network interface) when the portable computer is in On mode (i.e. in a work mode), Column 8 Lines 30-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and ATKINSON before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a power switch configured to supply a network interface in a work mode as taught by ATKINSON into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to provide a user with the capability to control power consumption [ATKINSON Column 8 Lines 45-48].
Regarding Claim 17, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and ATKINSON teaches the controller of Claim 2 as applied above.
The remainder of Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 3, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 18, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and ATKINSON teaches the controller of Claim 2 as applied above.
The remainder of Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 4, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 19, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and ATKINSON teaches the controller of Claim 2 as applied above.
The remainder of Claim 19 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 5, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and ATKINSON teaches the controller of Claim 2 as applied above.
The remainder of Claim 20 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 6, and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of DIAB et al. (US 2015/0094868 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach wherein the industrial appliance is an industrial robot.
However, in the analogous art of factory controls, DIAB teaches wherein the industrial appliance is an industrial robot [machine 110 is robotics that participates in any operation along process line 108 (i.e. an industrial robot), par 14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and DIAB before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the industrial robot as taught by DIAB into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to enhance capabilities of industrial networks [DIAB par 3].
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of PATHAK (US 2009/0228695 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach wherein the network interface includes a safety controller configured to report, via the external network, a status of the industrial appliance in the work mode and the sleep mode.
However, in the analogous art of remote connections, PATHAK teaches a network interface including a safety controller configured to report, via the external network, a status of the industrial appliance in a work mode and a sleep mode [imaging device 120 (i.e. industrial appliance) sends a status response (imaging device 120 is connected to management device 110 receiving status report through TCP network 130, FIG. 1; imaging device 120 interfaces with TCP network 130 through network interface (i.e. a network interface containing a safety controller), p. 35) indicating the current mode of imaging device 120 (current mode is either a power mode (i.e. work mode) or power saving mode (power saving mode is a sleep mode; i.e. sleep mode), p. 49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and PATHAK before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining the operational status of a device through status requests as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to avoid wasting resources [PATHAK par. 3, 4].
Regarding Claim 12, CALLAGHAN discloses:
A method of operating an industrial controller [a method, FIG. 7] comprising:
a drive module for driving an industrial appliance [processing module 1010 (i.e. drive module) executes programs associated with actuators (i.e. an industrial appliance) through I/O module 1030, par. 66].
a network interface for communicating with an external network [integration component 1050 (i.e. network interface) provides a network interface that interfaces with integration servers (i.e. communicate with an external network), par. 67].
and a power module for directly supplying the drive module and network interface [power component 1040 (i.e. power module) energizes components 1010-1030, par. 65].
CALLAGHAN does not explicitly disclose a power switch connected to an input power source, the method including: receiving an indication whether to operate in work mode or sleep mode; in response to a work-mode indication, causing the power switch to supply the power module; and causing the power module to supply the drive module; in response to a sleep-mode indication: causing the power switch to supply the network interface but not the power module.
However, in the analogous art of suspend and resume modes, CHEN teaches:
a power switch connected to an input power source [power switch 106 (i.e. power switch) is electrically connected to processing module 108 (i.e. must have an input power source to derive electricity from in order to be electrically connected), par. 14], the method including:
receiving an indication whether to operate in work mode or sleep mode [processing module 108 receives wakeup interrupt 107, par. 14; wakeup interrupt 107 is an interrupt that further performs wakeup process 109 and the power management process 111 to switch the thin client host 1 back to the active mode (i.e. indication to operate in a work mode), par. 17];
in response to a work-mode indication, causing the power switch to supply the power module [In response to wakeup interrupt 107 (i.e. work-mode indication), and after making sure that the thin client host 1 is in a sleep mode, processing module 108 further switches the power switch 106 from the processing module 108 to the power module 102 (i.e. power supply to supply a power module), par. 15];
and causing a power module to supply a module [The processing module 108 transfer a trigger signal 113 to the power module 102 to activate the power module 102 according to the power management process 111 to supply the power of the thin client host 1 (and thus processing module 108 (i.e. a module), FIG. 1) when it is back to the active mode (i.e. a work mode), par. 15];
and causing the power switch to supply the network interface [network module 104 (i.e. network interface) generates wakeup interrupt 107 while the thin client host is in sleep mode, par. 14; network module must be supplied in order to generate] but not the power module in a sleep mode [The power switch 106 is electrically connected to the power module 102 during the active mode and is electrically connected to the processing module 108 (network module 104 is connected to processing module and generated wakeup interrupt while in sleep mode, par. 14) during the sleep mode, par. 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN and CHEN before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the controller operable in an active and sleep mode as well as the power module configured to supply a module in the work mode, a power switch configured to supply power to the power module in the work mode and to supply a network interface and not the power module in the sleep mode as taught by CHEN into the controller as disclosed by CALLAGHAN in order to simplify the power management system used to accomplish the wakeup mechanism [CHEN par. 19].
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach in response to a sleep-mode indication: causing the power switch to supply the network interface but not the power module.
However, in the analogous art of monitoring remote activities, PATHAK teaches in response to a sleep-mode indication entering a sleep-mode mode [after a predetermined time of inactivity, imaging device enters a power saving mode (i.e. in response to a sleep-mode indication); power saving mode is a sleep mode, par. 49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and PATHAK before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to entering a sleep mode in response to an indication as taught by PATHAK into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to wake a device without wasting resources [PATHAK par. 4].
Regarding Claim 13, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and PATHAK teaches the method of Claim 12 as applied above.
CHEN further teaches wherein the indication is received from a network interface [processing module 108 receives the wakeup interrupt 107 (i.e. the indication) generated by the network module 104 (processing module 108 receives indication from the network interface), par. 14].
Regarding Claim 15, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and PATHAK teaches the method of Claim 12 as applied above.
PATHAK further teaches reporting a status of the industrial appliance independently of the indication [management device 110 generates and transmits either a request or a wakeup request (i.e. indication) in response to receiving either a status response indicating a fully operational mode or a power saving mode (i.e. the status, status response does not rely on the indication, thus independent), p. 49].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of LINDSAY (US 2010/0325463 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach wherein the network interface includes processing circuitry configured to operate at lower clock frequency in the sleep mode than in the work mode.
However, in the analogous art of reducing energy consumption in communication networks, LINDSAY teaches wherein a network interface includes processing circuitry configured to operate at lower clock frequency in a sleep mode than in a work mode [While in a low-power state, a PCI-E clock in the PCI-E core 210 (inside network interface controller 202, FIG. 2) is stopped (i.e. a lower clock frequency), par. 25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and LINDSAY before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a network interface configured to operate at a lower clock frequency while in a sleep mode as taught by LINDSAY into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to save power [LINDSAY, par. 25].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CRONIN (US 2015/0097598 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN teaches the controller of Claim 1 as applied above.
CALLAGHAN and CHEN do not explicitly teach wherein the power switch is adapted for retrofitting.
However, in the analogous art of electronic circuits, CRONIN teaches wherein a power switch is adapted for retrofitting [power switching apparatus (i.e. a power switch) may be retro-fitted with another controller, p. 57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, and CRONIN before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a power switch capable of being retrofit as taught by CRONIN into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN in order to continue function of a controller with a substitute switch without substantially affecting its operations [CRONIN par. 57].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and PATHAK as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of LINDSAY.
Regarding Claim 14, CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and PATHAK teaches the method of Claim 12 as applied above.
PATHAK teaches in response to a sleep-mode indication entering a sleep mode [after a predetermined time of inactivity, imaging device enters a power saving mode (i.e. in response to a sleep-mode indication); power saving mode is a sleep mode, par. 49].
CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and PATHAK does not explicitly teach in response to a sleep-mode indication, causing the network interface to operate at a reduced clock frequency.
However, in the analogous art of reducing energy consumption in communication networks, LINDSAY teaches when in a sleep mode, causing the network interface to operate at a reduced clock frequency [While in a low-power state, a PCI-E clock in the PCI-E core 210 (inside network interface controller 202, FIG. 2) is stopped (i.e. a lower clock frequency); If the PCI-E core 214 has been inactive for a period of time, for example, 10-5000 microseconds (i.e. sleep), the PCI-E core 210 may transition to the low power PCI-E state, par. 25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CALLAGHAN, CHEN, PATHAK, and LINDSAY before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a network interface configured to operate at a lower clock frequency while in a sleep mode as taught by LINDSAY into the controller as taught by CALLAGHAN in view of CHEN and PATHAK in order to save power [LINDSAY, par. 25].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSUE L RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/J.L.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 2175
/ANDREW J JUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights