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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/643,013 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. (U.S. PN: 12,339,721).
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “detecting a power fault on the wire pair based on the error rate” which does not particularly point out how the power fault in the wire is detected based on the error rate and further with respect to how the error rate is being used to detect a power fault on the wire pair. For example., does the power fault is determined or detected when the error rate is compared to a normal operation? Furthermore, the claim recites “performing a power fault response action based on detection of the power fault” however “a power fault response action” of what exactly is being referred to here? Clarification is required.
Independent claims 9 and 16 include similar limitations of independent claim 1 andtherefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,721.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method comprising: applying Forward Error Correction (FEC) to data at a power transmitter; transmitting the data and power over a wire pair to a power receiver; applying FEC decoding to at least a portion of the data received at the power receiver; deriving an error rate based on the FEC decoding; detecting a power fault on the wire pair based on the error rate; and performing a power fault response action based on detection of the power fault. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,721 teaches “a method comprising: applying Forward Error Correction (FEC) to data at a power transmitter; transmitting the data and power over a wire pair to a power receiver; applying FEC decoding to at least a portion of the data received at the power receiver; deriving an error rate based on the FEC decoding; generating an indication of a power fault on the wire pair based on the error rate; determining whether to shut down or adjust the power based on the indication of the power fault together with information available to the power transmitter and/or power receiver; and shutting down the power or adjusting a power setting of the power at the power transmitter based on the determining”.
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 1 broadens the scope of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,339,721 by eliminating several imitations. It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,721 read on the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Other parallel independent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the independent claims of Patent No. 12,339,721 are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same rationales discussed above.
Dependent claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims the '721 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,506.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method comprising: applying Forward Error Correction (FEC) to data at a power transmitter; transmitting the data and power over a wire pair to a power receiver; applying FEC decoding to at least a portion of the data received at the power receiver; deriving an error rate based on the FEC decoding; detecting a power fault on the wire pair based on the error rate; and performing a power fault response action based on detection of the power fault. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,506 teaches “A method comprising: applying Forward Error Correction (FEC) to data at a power sourcing equipment; transmitting the data and power over a wire pair to a powered device; applying FEC decoding to at least a portion of the data received at the powered device; determining an error rate based on the FEC decoding; generating an indication of a power fault on the wire pair based on determining the error rate; and shutting down the power or adjusting a power setting of the power at the power sourcing equipment based on the indication of the power fault”.
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 1 broadens the scope of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,061,506 by eliminating several imitations. It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,506 read on the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Other parallel independent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the independent claims of Patent No. 12,061,506 are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same rationales discussed above.
Dependent claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims the '506 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights