DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
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 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
power controller and detector in claim 1,
power transmission controller in claim 7,
user controller in claim 16.
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 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.
Claims 1-16 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 claim(s) contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites generic placeholders with functional language and without recitation of accompanying structure for executing the claimed functions (a power controller, a detector). The specification fails to provide adequate written description of structures corresponding to the claimed functions. The specification discloses a power controller and detector at a high level of generality, disclosing only their functional details without regards to any structure for executing those functions. The drawings show these components in an abstract, “black box” fashion and do not disclose any internal composition. Similar reasoning may be applied to the power transmission controller of claim 7 and the user controller of claim 16. Claims 1-16 are therefore rejected because they lack adequate written description of structure to support the claimed functions.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 1 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. Claim 1 recites generic placeholders accompanied by functional language (a power controller, a detector). The specification fails to provide adequate written description of structures corresponding to the claimed functions. The specification discloses a power controller and detector at a high level of generality, disclosing only their functional details without regards to any structure for executing those functions. The drawings show these components in an abstract, “black box” fashion and do not disclose any internal composition. Similar reasoning may be applied to the power transmission controller of claim 7 and the user controller of claim 16. 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 1 is additionally rejected as being indefinite because it employs functional language in an apparatus claim that makes it unclear whether the apparatus is specifically limited to perform the function (i.e., a structural limitation) or is merely reciting an intended use (and possibly non-limiting). Claim 1 recites a power controller, a detector, and a processor that executes recited functions (e.g., “…the processor compares the power supply signal and a preset threshold…”). In order to avoid intended use limitations, the claims should be amended to recite that the components are configured to execute the functions. Similar reasoning is applied to the dependent claims which recite numerous instances of functional language without indicating that the related component is configured to execute the function.
Claim 1 recites “the power controller base” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior original recitation of a power controller base in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the functional parameter” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior original recitation of a functional parameter in the claim or its parent. Claim 1 provides an original recitation of a function parameter.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the transmission handshake information” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior original recitation of a transmission handshake information in the claim or its parent.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the last shutdown” and “the range” in lines 4, 5, and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior original recitation of a last shutdown or a range in the claim or its parent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0365586 discloses a power control device [Fig. 4] comprising:
a connection port [power supply line 406 from sensor->VR input filter], electrically connected to the power supply device [power source 403 and battery 402];
a power controller [VR input filter], electrically connected to the connection port [power supply line 406 from sensor] and the power receiving device [system components 407], the power controller provides the power to the power receiving device via the connection port [para. 0050: “The sensor 412 may be positioned along the power supply line 406 near the battery 402 to measure the current being pulled out of the battery 402 on the input side, which may be different from the current being drawn into the system components 407 in the system 404 on the output side. That is, peak power may be cut and filtered out by a VR input filter 411. Although FIG. 4 shows one VR input filter 411 for simplicity, the VR input filter 411 may represent a separate input filter and a separate voltage regulator. Further, although FIG. 4 shows only one VR input filter 411 for simplicity, the electronic device 400 may include a separate VR input filter (e.g., a combination of an input filter and a voltage regulator) for individual system components 407 (e.g., the CPU 408 and the GPU 410).”];
a detector [sensor 412], electrically connected to the connection port [power supply line 406 from sensor] to detect the power [para. 0050: “The sensor 412 may be positioned along the power supply line 406 near the battery 402 to measure the current being pulled out of the battery 402 on the input side…”] and generate a power supply signal correspondingly [sensor output to comparator 414]; and
a comparator electrically connected to the detector, the comparator compares the power supply signal and a preset threshold [para. 0051: “…the comparator 414 may include a current comparator, which may compare the current level detected across the sensor 412 against a current threshold (Ith)...”] to generate a control signal to a controller [controller 416], and the controller triggers a system power manager to control a function parameter of the power receiving device according to the control signal [para. 0056: “The system power manager 418 may receive information from the controller 416 about the measured current in relation to the current threshold Ith. The received information may indicate that, for example, the power usage by the system 404 is well below the maximum current capability (Imax) of the battery 402, getting close to reaching the Imax, and/or in danger of causing a brownout. In response, the system power manager 418 may react by throttling or unthrottling one or more of the system components 407 in the system 404, such as the CPU 408 and/or the GPU 410.”].
Li et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236658, discloses an invention that adjusts a display brightness based on a comparison of a power consumption level to a power supply threshold [para. 0053].
Yu, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0145516, discloses an invention that adjusts a maximum allowable current drawn by a device connected to a USB port based on a power consumption exceeding a threshold [para. 0044].
Dube et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0241945, discloses an invention that adjusts a module power limit based on comparison of a power level delivered by a power supply to a threshold [abstract].
Naffziger et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,661,003, discloses an invention that adjusts a working power limit based on performance factors [Fig. 5].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights