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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0130052) and Walsh (U.S. Patent 6,772,361).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Ohyama discloses a processing system (Figure 1, item 13) comprising:
a reception unit (Figure 3, item 131) configured to receive function selection information of a device (Figure 1, item 12) from a user terminal (Figure 1, item 11/Figure 6, item 22) via a network (Figure 1, item 15, paragraphs 0026, 0028, and 0031-0032; i.e., the subject designation information together with the user selection information indicating the user’s preference for a design is equivalent to the claimed “function selection information”);
a processing unit (Figure 3, item 137, paragraphs 0054-0055) configured to generate, based on the function selection information, information for writing for setting a function of the device (paragraphs 0029 and 0061; i.e., the design information generated by the design information generation unit 137 is equivalent to the “information for writing”); and
a transmission unit (Figure 3, item 131) configured to transmit the information for writing to the user terminal (paragraphs 0029 and 0061-0062; i.e., the design information is generated by the design information generation unit 137 and subsequently transmitted to the user terminal [referred to as terminal 22 in Figure 6]; the user terminal thereafter writes the design information to the subject device 12).
Ohyama does not expressly disclose that the device is a programmable real time clock device.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., configuration of industrial products), Walsh teaches that the device is a programmable real time clock device (Figure 5B, item 56, Column 2, lines 2-5 and Column 12, lines 10-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Walsh’s teachings of configuration of industrial products with the teachings of Ohyama, for the purpose of ensuring that the device has a highly accurate time source. This would allow the types of industrial devices disclosed in Ohyama to Industrial controllers and remote telemetry units can execute time-based automation scripts and triggers without needing a constant network connection or manual clock reset.
Regarding Claim 2, Ohyama and Walsh teach wherein the processing unit generates, based on the function selection information, characteristic information of the real time clock device (Walsh, Figure 5B, item 56, Column 2, lines 2-5 and Column 12, lines 10-13) at a time when a function selected by the user is set in the real time clock device (Ohyama, paragraph 0058), and
the transmission unit transmits the characteristic information to the user terminal (Ohyama, paragraphs 0061-0062).
Regarding Claim 3, Walsh teaches wherein the characteristic information is power consumption information (Column 12, lines 28-43; i.e., a more accurate requirement would require higher power consumption).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohyama discloses wherein when the reception unit receives a characteristic information generation instruction from the user terminal via the network (paragraph 0029), the processing unit generates the characteristic information based on the function selection information at a time when the characteristic information generation instruction is performed (paragraphs 0054 and 0058), and
when the reception unit receives an information for writing generation instruction from the user terminal via the network, the processing unit generates the information for writing based on the function selection information at a time when the information for writing generation instruction is performed (paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohyama discloses wherein the processing unit performs processing of displaying the characteristic information on a display unit (Figure 2, item 112) of the user terminal (paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 6, Walsh teaches wherein the real time clock device includes a clock signal generation circuit that generates a clock signal used for clocking (Figure 5B, item 64, Column 13, lines 1-12), and
the function selection information is information for selecting frequency accuracy of the clock signal (Column 12, lines 28-43).
Regarding Claim 9, Walsh teaches wherein the information for writing is information written in a nonvolatile memory of the real time clock device (Figure 5B, item 74, Column 14, lines 33-36).
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, Ohyama and Walsh teach a writing system (Ohyama, Figure 1, item 10) for a real time clock device, comprising:
the processing system according to claim 1 (Ohyama, Figure 1, item 13);
the user terminal (Ohyama, Figure 1, item 11); and
a writing device (Ohyama, Figure 6, item S26; i.e., the component connected to user terminal 11/22 that actually writes the design to the subject device 12) communicably connected to the user terminal and configured to write the information for writing in a nonvolatile memory of the real time clock device (Walsh, Figure 5B, item 74, Column 14, lines 33-36).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohyama and Walsh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0356869).
Regarding Claim 7, Ohyama and Walsh do not expressly disclose wherein the real time clock device includes a power supply control circuit that performs charging control for a backup element by a main power supply voltage, and
the function selection information is operation setting information of the power supply control circuit.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., configuration of industrial products), Kwon teaches wherein the real time clock device (Figure 1, item 10) includes a power supply control circuit (Figure 1, item 400) that performs charging control for a backup element (Figure 1, item 300) by a main power supply voltage (paragraphs 0027 and 0039), and
the function selection information is operation setting information of the power supply control circuit (paragraphs 0044-0045).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kwon’s teachings of configuration of industrial products with the teachings of Ohyama and Walsh, for the purpose of allowing the device to continue to operate even if the main power supply is cut off (i.e., by including a backup rechargeable battery in the device).
Regarding Claim 8, Kwon teaches wherein the power supply control circuit performs the charging control based on comparison of a backup power supply voltage from the backup element and a threshold voltage (paragraph 0043; i.e., the backup battery is used whenever voltage is cutoff [the claimed “threshold voltage”] from the main power supply), and
the operation setting information is setting information of the threshold voltage (paragraphs 0044-0045; i.e., the device is controlled to switch to the backup battery if the main power supply voltage is cut off).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a system for configuring a real time clock in accordance with user specified requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights