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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy (TW 113121395) has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7, 9, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Refer to the claimed D5, D6.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In addition, claim 3, line 2 the recited “in form of diodes D5, D6, respectively” should be “in the form of two diodes (D5, D6), respectively”.
Dependent claim 4 is objected to because it depends on objected claim 3.
Claim 5, line 2 the recited “D1 to D4” should be “(D1 to D4)”.
Claim 5, lines 2-3 the recited “are in form of capacitors C1, C2,” should be “are in the form of two capacitors (C1,C1)”.
Dependent claims 6-7 are also objected to since they depend on objected claims.
Claim 9, line 2 the recited “D1 to D4” should be “(D1 to D4)”.
Claim 9, line 2-3 the recited “are in form of capacitors C1, C2,” should be “are in the form of two capacitors (C1,C1)”.
Claim 12, line 2 the recited “D1 to D4” should be “(D1 to D4)”.
Claim 12 line 2-3 the recited “are ion form of capacitors C1, C2,” should be “are in the form of two capacitors (C1,C1)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 is the “the signal transmission interface is adapted to” in claim 7.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “signal transmission interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant application disclosure disclosed the “signal transmission interface” as block 30, but does not disclose any corresponding structure within that block for performing the entire claimed function (“to continuously perform baseband signal communication through the signal line, where the baseband signal communication comprises TX transmission signals and RX reception signals”).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
According to MPEP§ 2181 IV. DETERMINING WHETHER 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH SUPPORT EXISTS,
“Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.”
The instant specification fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. The specification merely restates the function associated with the “signal transmission interface” without more description of the interface.
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 1-5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Adams et al. (U.S. 6,373,376) in view of Shi (U.S. 2022/0239218).
With respect to claim 1, Adams et al. disclose:
an AC power input terminal having a first power line, a second power line and a signal line (Fig. 2, left side, the claimed AC power input terminal comprises the first and second power lines 24 and 25 and the data line 23 and the terminals (PT1, PT2, DT) to the circuit comprising the components to the right of the of the AC power input terminal. Fig. 2 is related to Fig. 1, column 7, lines 47-65, column 8, lines 1-6);
a rectification circuit (at least 33 bridge rectifier (and optionally diodes D3 and D8)) connected to the first power line and the second power line and comprising a full-wave rectification unit (refer to the circuit comprising at least 33 bridge rectifier, column 8, lines 66-67, column 9, lines 1-4 and column 11, lines 40-57), a first output terminal and a second output terminal (Fig. 2, for example refer to first output terminal 27 and second output terminal 28, refer to at least column 8, lines 1-5, 52-57); and a signal transmission interface (Fig. 2, the claimed signal transmission interface comprises output interface 11’ (includes R5, R6, Q1 and D9, column 7, lines 66-67) and input interface 17’ (column 9, lines 58-63), column 7, lines 57-59, and at least column 9, lines 31-41 describe DATO transmission over DT (data line 23), column 9, lines 58-60 DATI reception over DT (data line 23). Also, column 2, lines 57-60, and refer to the DATO and DATI communication direction shown in at least related Fig. 1) electrically connected to the first output terminal and the second output terminal of the rectification circuit (as shown in Fig. 2, the claimed signal transmission interface is electrically connected to 27 and 28) and the signal line (refer to the connection to DT at the node between R6 and R2), wherein the signal transmission interface receives a current source (it receives DC (direct current source) power, column 9, lines 3-5) with a common reference potential from the first and second output terminals as the AC power source is input (the DC power is a full-wave rectified DC power obtained from full-wave rectification of the 24V 60 Hz AC input, the “high” voltage level (for example) of the DC power corresponds to the claimed common reference potential with respect to the low volage level (virtual ground)).
Adams et al. do not disclose: a rectification and energy storage circuit; two energy storage units; the rectification and energy storage circuit.
Implementing AC to DC conversion (using a full bride rectifier circuit), Shi discloses: a rectification and energy storage circuit (e.g. Fig. 9, 920, [0069]-[0070]); two energy storage units (refer to at least capacitors 932, 934, [0069]-[0070]. Capacitors are known in the art to perform energy storage (they are energy storage unit)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rectification circuit of Adams et al. based on the teachings of Shi et al. to be a rectification and energy storage circuit, by including at least two energy storage units (capacitors 932 and 934) to conform the current waveform more closely to the theoretical signal waveform ([Shi, [0069]-[0070]).
With respect to claim 2, modified Adams et al. disclose: wherein the rectification and energy storage circuit further comprises two unidirectional conduction units (refer to Fig. 2, diodes D3 and D8, arranged in the same direction) electrically connected between the full-wave rectification unit and the first output terminal, respectively (as shown).
With respect to claim 3, modified Adams et al. disclose: wherein the two unidirectional conduction units are in form of diodes D5, D6, respectively (Fig. 2, refer to diodes D3 and D8).
With respect to claim 4, modified Adams et al. disclose:
wherein the full-wave rectification unit comprises a positive half-cycle current path (during a positive half-cycle the conducting pair of diodes in 33 forms the claimed positive half-cycle current according to the principle of operation of a full bridge rectifier) and a negative half-cycle current path (during a negative half-cycle the other conducting pair of diodes in 33 forms the claimed negative half-cycle) , and the two energy storage units are electrically connected to the positive half- cycle current path and the negative half-cycle current path of the full-wave rectification unit, respectively (disclosed in modified Adams et al.).
With respect to claim 5, modified Adams et al.
wherein the full-wave rectification unit comprises four diodes D1 to D4 (Fig. 2 refer to the four diodes within 33), and the two energy storage units are in form of capacitors C1, C2, (the leg capacitors taught by Shi et al.) respectively, and wherein the capacitor C1 is electrically connected to the positive half-cycle current path formed by the diodes D1, D3 (the pair of diodes of 33 which conduct during the positive half-cycle, C1 one of the leg capacitors is electrically connected to that pair) while the capacitor C2 is electrically connected to the negative half-cycle current path formed by the diodes D2, D4 (the other pair of diodes of 33 which conduct during the negative half-cycle, C2 is the other one of the leg capacitors, is electrically connected to that pair).
With respect to claim 7, as best understood, modified Adams et al. disclose: wherein the signal transmission interface (interface 11’ (includes R5, R6, Q1 and D9, column 7, lines 66-67) and input interface 17’ (column 9, lines 58-63)) is adapted to continuously perform baseband signal communication through the signal line, where the baseband signal communication comprises TX transmission signals and RX reception signals (refer to signals output data DATO and input data DATI, also refer to controller area network (CAN), HVAC system communication, and the data is not in radio frequency or intermediate frequency (not upconverted), therefore the communication is baseband).
Claims 8-9 are rejected based on the rationale used to reject claims 4-5 above.
Method claim 10 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject apparatus claim 1 above (the DATO signals correspond to the claimed baseband signals).
Method claims 11-13 are rejected based on the rationale used to reject claims 8, 9, 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(Note that in this Office Action, claims 3-6 are currently objected to for various informalities).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alexandrov (U.S. 2006/0202640) refer to the power line communication system of Fig. 4 shown in more detail in Fig. 7.
Andrew Carter “Full-Wave Rectification”, January 4, 2012. pp. 1-5. Refer to at least pages 3-4 in section “Full-wave Bridge Rectifier”.
“Negative and positive cycle of AC current, Half wave rectification and Full wave rectification”, March 2013, pp. 1-2. Page 2 describes the operation of a fill wave bridge rectifier during positive and negative input AC cycles.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights