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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of Patent Application 19001596 on 12/26/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1,12 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 12, and 19 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to linking device names and power devices. Specifically, the claims recite controlling the power control unit to provide power to the USB interface to power the IT device in accordance with the configuration dataset, assigning a unique logical device name for their device coupled to the USB port, linking the unique logical device name to a port name associated with a device path of the IT device, linking a port name associated with a device path of the IT device to the unique logical device name, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as usb interface, power control unit, nontransitory computer readable medium processor device merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the usb interface, power control unit, nontransitory computer readable medium processor device perform(s) the steps or functions of retrieving configuration data of the IT device from the communication dataset. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a usb interface, power control unit, nontransitory computer readable medium processor device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of linking device names and power devices. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the usb interface, power control unit, nontransitory computer readable medium processor device perform(s) the steps or functions retrieving configuration data of the IT device from the communication dataset. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of linking device names and power devices. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, 20 further describe the abstract idea of linking device names and power devices. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slavin (U.S. Patent App Pub 20160246344)
Regarding claim 12,
Slavin teaches control system, comprising: a universal serial bus (USB) interface with a USB port; a power control unit in communication with the USB interface; a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing a computer-readable program code and a configuration dataset; and a processor device in communication with the non-transitory computer-readable media, the power control unit and the USB interface, the processor device is operative with the computer-readable program code to perform detecting when an information technology (IT) device is connected to the USB port, (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin)
retrieving configuration data from the configuration dataset of the IT device connected to the USB port, and (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin teaches retrieving configuration data)
controlling the power control unit to supply power to the USB interface in accordance with the configuration data. (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin teaches powering a usb port)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (U.S. Patent App Pub 20160246344) in view of Moriya (U.S. Patent App Pub 20070047524).
Regarding claim 1,
Slavin teaches a control system, comprising: a universal serial bus (USB) interface with a USB port, the USB interface is configured to connect to an information technology (IT) device; a power control unit in communication with the USB interface, the power control unit is configured to provide power to the USB interface; a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing a computer-readable program code and a configuration dataset; and a processor device in communication with the non-transitory medium, the power control unit and the USB interface computer-readable media the power control unit and the USB interface, wherein the processor device is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to perform, when an IT device is connected to the USB interface, (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin)
retrieving configuration data of the IT device from the communication dataset, controlling the power control unit to provide power to the USB interface to power the IT device in accordance with the configuration dataset, (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin teaches powering a usb port)
Slavin does not explicitly teach but Moriya teaches assigning a unique logical device name for their device coupled to the USB port, and (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya teaches local name of device coupled to USB port)
linking the unique logical device name to a port name associated with a device path of the IT device. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya teaches linking device name to port name)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Moriya with Slavin because both deal with USB ports. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Moriya into Slavin is that Moriya allows detection and display of the device through the network. Reduces complicated operation e.g. repeating a change of port name each time port configuration when printer is set up in the computer, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Moriya)
Regarding claim 2,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 1.
Moriya further teaches wherein the processor device, when it detects that the IT device is disconnected from the USB port, is configured to: unlink the unique logical device name from the port name; and control the USB interface to terminate providing power to the USB port. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya teaches local name of device coupled to USB port) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 1, wherein the USB interface comprises a plurality of USB ports, wherein the USB ports are configured to connect to IT devices.(See paragraphs 4, 19, claim 7, Slavin)
Regarding claim 4,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 3.
Moriya further teaches wherein the processor device is configured to: detect if any of the plurality of USB ports are connected with a respective IT device; and control the USB interface to provide power to the USB ports with respective IT devices in accordance with configuration data of the respective IT devices (See paragraphs 63-64, figures 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 4.
Moriya further teaches wherein the processor device is configured to: assign unique logical device names for respective IT devices coupled to respective USB ports, and linking the unique logical device names to respective USB ports name associated with respective device paths of the respective IT devices. (See paragraphs 63-64, figures 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 4.
Moriya further teaches wherein the processor device is configured to: unlink a respective unique logical device name from a respective port name when the respective IT device is detected to be removed from the respective USB port; and control the power control unit to terminate providing power to the respective USB port. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 1. Moriya teaches wherein the power control unit, the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the processor device are implemented on a first circuit board disposed on a base plate of a housing of a modular infrastructure management system.(See paragraphs 44-45, figures 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 7.
Moriya further teaches wherein the modular infrastructure management system comprises: the housing including, the base plate comprising, first and second edges, wherein the first and second edges are parallel, and third and fourth edges, wherein the third and fourth edges are parallel and perpendicular to the first and second edges; and first modular slots disposed along at least the first edge of the base plate for removably receiving first communication card modules, wherein the first communication card modules comprise second circuit boards that are parallel to the base plate while the first communication card modules are removably inserted into the first modular slots.(See paragraphs 46, 88, 103, figs 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 8. Moriya teaches further comprises second modular slots disposed along the second edge of the base plate for removably receiving second communication card modules.( See paragraphs 46, 88, figs 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 9. Moriya teaches wherein the USB interface is implemented on at least one of the first communication card modules. See paragraphs 46, 88, 103, figs 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 10. Moriya teaches the wherein at least two of the first communication card modules comprise different depths. See paragraphs 46, 88, 103, figs 34-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13,
Slavin teaches the control system of claim 12
Slavin does not teach but Moriya teaches wherein the processor device, when it detects that the IT device is connected to the USB port, is configured to: assigning a unique logical device name for their device coupled to the USB port, and linking the unique logical device name to a port name associated with a device path of the IT device. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya teaches local name of device coupled to USB port)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Moriya with Slavin because both deal with USB ports. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Moriya into Slavin is that Moriya allows detection and display of the device through the network. Reduces complicated operation e.g. repeating a change of port name each time port configuration when printer is set up in the computer, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Moriya)
Regarding claim 14,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 13.
Moriya teaches wherein the processor device, when it detects that the IT device is disconnected from the USB port, is configured to: unlink the unique logical device name from the port name; and control the USB interface to terminate providing power to the USB port. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya teaches local name of device coupled to USB port) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 12, wherein the USB interface comprises a plurality of USB ports, wherein the USB ports are configured to connect to IT devices. (See paragraphs 14-16 figures 1-2, Slavin)
Regarding claim 16,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 15.
Moriya teaches wherein the processor device is configured to: detect if any of the plurality of USB ports are connected with a respective IT device; and control the USB interface to provide power to the USB ports with respective IT devices in accordance with configuration data of the respective IT devices. (See paragraphs 62-64, figures 3, 2, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 16.
Moriya teaches wherein the processor device is configured to: assign unique logical device names for respective IT devices coupled to respective USB ports, and linking the unique logical device names to respective ports name (See paragraphs 63-64, figures 3-4, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.device paths of the respective IT devices.
Regarding claim 18,
Slavin and Moriya teach the control system of claim 17.
Moriya teaches wherein the processor device is configured to: unlink a respective unique logical device name from a respective port name when the respective IT device is detected to be removed from the respective USB port; and control the power control unit to terminate providing power to the respective USB port. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19,
Slavin teaches a method of controlling universal serial bus (USB) ports, comprising: detecting an information technology (IT) device coupled a universal serial bus (USB) port of a plurality of USB ports of a USB interface; (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin)
controlling a power control unit to provide power assigning a unique logical device name to the IT device; and (See fig 1-2, paragraphs 19-22, Slavin teaches powering a usb port)
Slavin does not explicitly teach but Moriya teaches linking a port name associated with a device path of the IT device to the unique logical device name. (See paragraphs 44-47, figures 4-6, Moriya teaches linking device name to port name)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Moriya with Slavin because both deal with USB ports. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Moriya into Slavin is that Moriya allows detection and display of the device through the network. Reduces complicated operation e.g. repeating a change of port name each time port configuration when printer is set up in the computer, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Moriya)
Regarding claim 20,
Slavin and Moriya teach the method of claim 19 further comprising individually controlling power supply to the plurality of USB ports in accordance with power enablement parameters. (See figures 1-2, paragraphs 17, 18, 30, Slavin)
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 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of United States Patent 12219729. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Chi, U.S. Patent 10534741, teaches transmitting signals via USB ports. For example, a system according to the present disclosure, may include a host module including a plurality of USB ports, a first expansion module, and a second expansion module. The first expansion module may include a first USB port and a second USB port. The first expansion module may receive a signal from the host module at a first USB port, and direct the signal to a second USB port. The first expansion module may transmit the signal to a second expansion module via a second USB port.
2. Norair, U.S. Patent App 20120207141, teaches a device may comprise a Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface and a wireless interface operable to communicate in accordance with the ISO 18000-7 standard. The device may be operable to receive a command via the USB interface and transmit the command via the wireless interface. The device may be operable to receive data via the wireless interface and transmit the data via the USB interface. A form factor of the USB device may be such that it can be plugged directly into a USB port without any external cabling between the USB device and said USB port.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John FOLLANSBEE can be reached on (571)272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights