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 .
In a Preliminary Amendment filed on March 31, 2025, claim 1 was cancelled and claims 2-22 were added.
Claims 2-22 are pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of this US application No.’s status as a continuation of US application No. 18/159,127 now US Patent No. 12,317,394 filed on 01/25/2023, which is a continuation of US application No. 17/392,035 now Abandoned filed on 08/02/2021, which is a continuation of US application No. 16/906,220 now US Patent No. 11,083,072 filed on 06/19/2020, which is a continuation of US application No. 16/197,779 now US Patent No. 10,694,610 filed on 11/21/2018, which is a continuation of US application No. 15/782,811 now US Patent No. 10,143,071 filed on 10/12/2017, which is a continuation of US application No. 15/619,141 now US Patent No. 9,826,604 filed on 6/9/2017, which is a continuation of US application No. 14/845,917 now US Patent No. 9,699,871 filed on 09/04/2015, which is a divisional of US application No. 13/830,102 now US Patent No. 9,167,669 filed on 03/14/2013.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 3, line 7, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 3, line 8, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 4, line 5, replace “the external” with “an external control”.
Claim 6, line 1, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 6, line 3, replace “a second” with “the second”.
Claim 6, line 4, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 7, line 1, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 7, lines 2-3, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 7, line 3, replace “a second” with “the second”.
Claim 7, line 4, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 10, line 10, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 11, line 4, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 12, line 3, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 12, line 6, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 13, line 5, replace “a change” with “the change”.
Claim 17, line 1, replace “16wherein” with “16 wherein”.
Claim 17, line 11, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 18, line 6, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 19, line 4, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 19, line 6, insert “control” before “device”.
Claim 20, line 5, replace “a change” with “the change”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
35 USC § 112(f) Analysis
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.
Claim 3 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as reciting means for performing a specified function.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Referring to claim 3, this claim recites the claim limitations “a manually actuatable input device to provide a second signal...”. In accord with Paragraphs [0054] and [0098] of the published Specification, the manually actuatable input device is construed as a “control interface”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “enter an association mode; receive, via the communication interface circuitry, a third input signal that includes a device identifier assigned to an external device; and form a logical association between the association and the external device”. Claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations.
It is unclear what is meant by forming a logical association between the association and the external device. Is “the association” referring to the “association mode”? If such is the case, how can a logical association be made between the association mode and a structural external device? The Office is unable to properly conduct a prior art search of claims 3, 10, and 17 in light of the indefinite recitations. Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... determine whether a duration of the first signal indicative of the change in the power state of the switched AC receptacle exceeds a defined interval; and responsive to the determination that the duration of the first signal indicative of the change in the power state of the switched AC receptacle exceeds the defined interval:...”
Step 2A(Prong One)
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the determining limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Paragraph [0146] of the Specification of the present application, as published, describes the determination function. Therefore, a person may determine, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the arrangement of the parts as claimed using the display that receives communications from the processor.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A(Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “sensing circuitry to detect a change in power state of the switched AC receptacle; communications interface circuitry; and control circuitry that is communicatively coupled to the sensing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry, the control circuitry to: receive, from the sensing circuitry, a first signal indicative of the change in the power state of the switched AC receptacle from a first power state to a second power state; generate an output signal that includes information indicative of the second power state of the switched AC receptacle;… cause the communication interface circuitry to transmit the generated output signal that includes information indicative of the second power state”.
The features including “sensing circuitry to detect a change in power state of the switched AC receptacle; communications interface circuitry; and control circuitry that is communicatively coupled to the sensing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry…”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to generate and determine as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than they are “sensing circuitry to detect a change in power state of the switched AC receptacle; communications interface circuitry; and control circuitry that is communicatively coupled to the sensing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry…”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic component, as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The receive limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The generating limitation and the transmitting limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing a meaningful limit. The limitations amount to necessary data generation or outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The features of the “sensing circuitry”, “communications interface circuitry”, and “control circuitry” do not amount to significantly more, as they do not add any inventive concept to the claim as they refer to generic computer components, which amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The receiving of the first signal represents a function that is recognized to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2011/0248576 A1 to Jones describes in Paragraph [0011] (“The dormant power signature may include an outlet state of the electrical power outlet being coupled to the battery charger and the battery charger decoupled from the chargeable electronic device. The processor may store the dormant power signature in the memory. In some embodiments, the processor receives an outlet state of the electrical power outlet from the sensing device. The processor may retrieve the dormant power signature from the memory. The processor may compare the received outlet state to the dormant power signature. In response to finding the received outlet state to be substantially equal to the dormant power signature, the processor may open the switch, and cut power to the battery charger. In some embodiments, the processor receives an outlet state of the electrical power outlet from the sensing device. The processor may retrieve the dormant power signature from the memory. The processor may compare the received outlet state to the dormant power signature.”) US Patent Publication No. 2011/0156496 A1 to Lee et al. describes in Paragraph [0030] (“The second microprocessor 204 in the each of the outdoor electrical power receptacles 2 does not merely receive the states of the power outlets and light but also receive the status signals associated with the surrounding environments of the outdoor electrical power receptacles 2, e.g. the switching signals, the operating status signals, the temperature and humanity status signals, or the weather condition status signals from a variety of environmental detectors (not shown).”) US Patent Publication No. 2012/0313454 A1 to Montena describes (“In this embodiment electronic device 122 is an electrical outlet. When power line 114 is in an energized state, electrical outlet 122 receives power from power output line 114. Power output line 114 is in an energized state when power input line 112 is in an energized state and switch 116 is in a closed position. Thus electrical outlet 122 is receiving power when power input line 112 is in an energized state and switch 116 is in a closed position. When switch 116 is in an open position, power output line 114 and electrical outlet 122 are not receiving power from power input line 112. In this embodiment electrical device 122 is an electrical outlet. In this embodiment whatever device, product, machine, or other electrical thing is plugged into electrical outlet 122 will receive power when power input line 112 is in an energized state and when switch 116 is in a closed position. In some embodiments electrical device 122 is an electrical device other than an electrical outlet.”)
In addition, the generating represents a function that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Specifically, with respect to “generate an output signal that includes information indicative of the second power state of the switched AC receptacle;… cause the communication interface circuitry to transmit the generated output signal that includes information indicative of the second power state”, US Patent No. 7,583,075 B1 to Hutchison describes in Column 4, lines 24-34 (“Referring to FIG. 6, a process flowchart detailing a method for monitoring the current flow of a power receptacle 600 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention is disclosed. A current carrying input wire and a current carrying output wire are connected to a power receptacle at state 601. The input and output wires may be connected utilizing screw terminals or other connection mechanisms common to the art. The input and output wires may serve as connections to one or more other power receptacles in series, as in a power strip.”) US Patent Publication No. 2011/0222195 A1 to Benoit et al. describes in Paragraph [0009] (“The AC circuit assembly is coupled to a plurality of input contacts, including the input ground contact, which are disposed in the power input receptacle and a plurality of output contacts, including the at least one output ground contact, are accessible via the at least one set of receptacle openings. The plurality of power input contacts are configured to mate with the plurality of plug connector contacts when the connector housing is inserted into the power input receptacle such that electrical continuity is established between the AC power distribution point and the plurality of output contacts in a first state, the electrical continuity being interrupted in a second state.”) US Patent Publication No. 2010/0141036 A1 to Mehler et al. describes in Paragraph [0029] describes “When the power transfer device 20 is powered at its input and output receptacles, and mode switch 104 is placed in the arm position SWB, D114 is energized, which in turn energizes D111. D111 and S111A in combination then self-energize D111, with S111B energizing D113 and D112. Because an active D112 maintains S112A in an open state (no connection between input and output receptacles), no power is transferred to the output receptacle from the input receptacle. Likewise, if the output receptacle is not connected to an active destination power supply, no relays are energized and no power is transferred to the output receptacle.”
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3, 6, and 7, these claims are also directed to further reciting receiving functions. As provided in independent claim 1, such limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions, such that the claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claims 3, 6, and 7, simply reciting receiving data, are construed as insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, these claims are also directed to further reciting transmitting functions. As provided in independent claim 1, such limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions, such that the claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claims 4 and 5, simply reciting transmitting signals, are construed as insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is also directed to further defining the determining abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9, the functions of independent claim 9 are implemented by similar functions as those of the apparatus of claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 1 above also applies to claim 9. Independent claim 9 is not deemed patent eligible.
The functions of claims 10, 13, and 14 are implemented by similar functions as those of the apparatus of claims 3, 6, and 7 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 3, 6, and 7 above also apply to claims 10, 13, and 14. Claims 10, 13, and 14 are not deemed patent eligible.
The functions of claims 11 and 12 are implemented by similar functions as those of the apparatus of claims 4 and 5 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 4 and 5 above also apply to claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 are not deemed patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is also directed to further defining the determining abstract idea as recited in independent claim 9. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 16, the functions of independent claim 9 are implemented by similar functions as those of the apparatus of claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 1 above also applies to claim 16. Independent claim 16 is not deemed patent eligible.
The functions of claims 17, 20, and 21 are implemented by similar functions as those of the apparatus of claims 3, 6, and 7 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 3, 6, and 7 above also apply to claims 17, 20, and 21. Claims 17, 20, and 21 are not deemed patent eligible.
The functions of claims 18 and 19 are implemented by similar functions as those of the apparatus of claims 4 and 5 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 4 and 5 above also apply to claims 18 and 19. Claims 18 and 19 are not deemed patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is also directed to further defining the determining abstract idea as recited in independent claim 16. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable pending the nonstatutory subject matter rejection under 35 USC 101 rejection given above.
While the prior art shows a method and an apparatus configured to be conductively connected to a switched alternating current (AC) receptacle, the apparatus comprising: sensing circuitry to detect a change in power state of the switched AC receptacle; communications interface circuitry; and control circuitry that is communicatively coupled to the sensing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry, the control circuitry to: receive, from the sensing circuitry, a first signal indicative of the change in the power state of the switched AC receptacle from a first power state to a second power state; and generate an output signal that includes information indicative of the second power state of the switched AC receptacle (see US Patent No. 7,583,075 B1 to Hutchison; US Patent No. 7,375,445 b1 to Smith; US Patent Publication No. 2012/0313454 A1 to Montena; US Patent Publication No. 2011/0248576 A1 to Jones; US Patent Publication No. 2011/0222195 A1 to Benoit; US Patent Publication No. 2011/0156496 A1 to Lee; US Patent Publication No. 2010/0141036 A1 to Mehler; US Patent No. 8,374,729 B2 to Chapel et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2014/0132084 A1 to Pham et al.; US Patent No. 7,375,445 B1 to Smith; and US Patent No. 9,013,283 to Tackaberry) the prior art, individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “determine whether a duration of the first signal indicative of the change in the power state of the switched AC receptacle exceeds a defined interval; and responsive to the determination that the duration of the first signal indicative of the change in the power state of the switched AC receptacle exceeds the defined interval: cause the communication interface circuitry to transmit the generated output signal that includes information indicative of the second power state,” as recited in independent claim 2 and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
In view of their dependencies to an allowable claim, claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are found to be allowable over prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 8,374,729 B2 to Chapel et al. describes in Column 10, line 48, to Column 11, line 9 “FIGS. 1A and 1B, front and side views, respectively, of an intelligent outlet in accordance with the present invention are shown. The illustrated outlet 100 includes two standard receptacles 102 accessible through a faceplate 104. Each of the receptacles 102 includes a receptacle body 106 for receiving a standard electrical plug and establishing an electrical connection between prongs of the plug and wiring 110 associated with the wiring system of the customer premises, e.g., a residence or business. The illustrated receptacle 100 further includes a controller 108 mounted within the outlet housing 112 in the illustrated embodiment. For example, the controller 108 may be embodied as an integrated circuit board. As will be discussed in more detail below, the controller 108 is operative for monitoring a loading with respect to each of the receptacles 102 and controlling delivery of power to the receptacles 106. For example, this may be done to classify an electrical device connected via the receptacles 106 or to identify a safety hazard. Delivery of power to the receptacles 102 may be controlled to alleviate a safety concern, to enhance efficiency of power distribution, to remotely control an electrical device connected to one of the receptacles 102, or to address a potential or actual over capacity condition of a power grid. The controller 108 may also be operative for communicating with other controllers, e.g., within the customer premises, at a separate customer premises or with network controllers outside of the customer premises. For example, such communications may be conducted via power lines, wirelessly or via other communications pathways.”
US Patent Publication No. 2014/0132084 A1 to Pham et al. describes in Paragraph [0027] (“In an embodiment, the wireless occupancy sensor 2 can be configured to transmit a signal 8 indicating that an occupant has been detected in the space. Such a signal may be received by the receptacle 6, and the receptacle 6 can be configured to supply power to a connected load. In some embodiments, the wireless occupancy sensor 2 may be configured so that if an occupant is not detected, the sensor does not transmit a signal. In such cases, the receptacle 6 may be configured to turn off power to the connected load immediately or after a predetermined delay period, as will be described in greater detail later.”) Pham describes in Paragraph [0028] (“The wireless switch 4 can be configured to transmit a signal to the receptacle 6 in a manner similar to the occupancy sensor 2. For example, the wireless switch 4 can transmit a switch signal 10, and the receptacle 6 can be configured to receive the switch signal 10 and supply power (or shut off power) to a connected load as appropriate.”)
US Patent No. 7,375,445 B1 to Smith describes in Column 2, lines 14-28 “…a controller that can move the effect of a wall switch from its associated switched power outlet socket to any regular (always on) socket by use of a transmitter/receiver paired device located separately in the switched and non-switched power outlets respectively, thus moving the effect of the wall switch without any wiring modifications to the sockets. The invention may use infrared light, ultrasonics, or radio-frequency radiations, or modulations on the power supply within the building such as the X-10 system. The preferred (and prototyped) solution does not require replaceable batteries but instead uses capacitive power storage for use after power has been removed from the transmitter in order to send the "off" signal to the receiver. Both transmitter and receiver use a common capacitive power supply.” Column 7, lines 8-16 describes “…a controller that can move the effect of a wall switch from its associated switched power outlet socket to any regular, always on, socket by use of a transmitter/receiver paired device located separately in the switched and non-switched power outlet respectively, thus moving the effect of the wall switch without any wiring modifications to the sockets. The invention may use infrared light, ultrasonics, or radio-frequency radiations, or modulations on the power supply within the building such as the X-10 system.”
US Patent No. 9,013,283 to Tackaberry describes with respect to FIGS. 11-13, an outlet in accordance with the present invention includes a plug detection function and features enabling the detection of proper insertion of a plug and/or insertion of something other than a proper plug. FIG. 11 depicts one possible embodiment wherein detection is provided by a switch 80 including an pin 82 which is displaced as a plug is inserted between the arms 68. Another possibility is that one or more of the brushes 74 of the retainer depicted in FIG. 9 may be adapted to be deflected outwardly as a plug is inserted to signal the inward movement of a plug. FIGS. 12 and 13 depict an electronic design for plug detection using, for example, an LED 86 and a photo sensor 88, wherein they are positioned adjacent to a retainer clip to detect the inward movement of a plug prong. This electronic sensing embodiment may comprise the use of Schmitt triggers or other suitable devices. FIG. 5 shows one embodiment of a supporting structure 90 carried by the bearing components for supporting the LEDs and photo sensors. They may be otherwise suitably located as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
