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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 13 is newly added by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. An information processing apparatus comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
wherein, for each of the plurality of applications, a first hardware device of the information processing apparatus necessary to display a screen for the respective application and a second hardware device of the information processing apparatus necessary to execute the respective application are defined (abstract idea mental process e.g., mentally create a definition for the devices);
after receiving an operation to power on the information processing apparatus, determine whether the first hardware device is restored (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
a processor (generic computing components) configured to execute a plurality of applications (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and wherein the processor is configured to:
upon determining that the first hardware device is restored, activate the respective application even when the second hardware device is not yet restored (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
a processor configured to execute a plurality of applications (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and wherein the processor is configured to:
upon determining that the first hardware device is restored, activate the respective application even when the second hardware device is not yet restored (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to not activate the respective application if the first hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored (abstract idea mental process i.e., do nothing to not activate the application).
Claim 3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is also configured to:
not execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored, even when an instruction to execute the respective application is given after the application is activated (abstract idea mental process i.e., do nothing to not activate the application); and
execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has been restored when the instruction to execute the respective application is given (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
As per claim 4, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
when an instruction to activate an unregistered application is given, and when a first hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to display a screen of the unregistered application is not registered in the information processing apparatus, register the first hardware device for the unregistered application accessed by the activated unregistered application before the screen is displayed after all devices had been restored for the unregistered application (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information); and
register a second hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to execute the unregistered application accessed by the unregistered application while the unregistered application is being accessed by the second hardware device for the unregistered application (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
As per claim 6, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to
activate a predetermined application if a first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the predetermined application has been restored (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) and
display the screen for the predetermined application after the operation for powering on the information processing apparatus is performed (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
activate the respective application if the first hardware device of the information processing apparatus has been restored and the information processing apparatus is powered on and an instruction to activate the respective application is given after information indicating a state of an executed program is stored in a memory, a function of supplying, to the memory, power necessary for the memory to hold the information without supplying power to the device-is executed, and the information processing apparatus is turned off (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 13. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
after receiving the operation to power on the information processing apparatus, display a menu screen including the plurality of applications (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information);
upon receiving a selection operation selecting one of the plurality of applications on the menu screen, determine whether the first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the selected application is restored (abstract idea mental process); and
upon determining that the first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the selected application is restored, activate the selected application even when the second hardware device necessary to execute the selected application is not yet restored (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weiss et al. (US 2021/0389816) (hereinafter Weiss).
As per claim 1, Weiss teaches an information processing apparatus (fig. 2, block 102 electronic device) comprising:
a processor (fig. 2, block 204 processor) configured to execute a plurality of applications ([0081] and [0085] processor configured to run applications); wherein, for each of the plurality of applications, a first hardware device of the information processing apparatus necessary to display a screen for the respective application (fig. 2, blocks 216-218 display and display circuitry) and a second hardware device of the information processing apparatus necessary to execute the respective application are defined (fig. 2, block 240 -and [0022] co-processor for running applications), and wherein the processor is configured to:
after receiving an operation to power on the information processing apparatus, determine whether the first hardware device is restored ([0043] during a wake state of electronic device, processor and/or co-processor may adjust the display brightness and/or the color of displayed images for display based on the detected amount and/or color of ambient light and [0073] sleeping/lower power state device determines whether a rotation of a smartwatch crown exceeds a threshold and responds to the rotation by brightening the display image frame while the processor is inactive and the image frame is displayed and then the processor wakes up and performs a function corresponding to the crown such as controlling a part of a displayed user interface after wake-up); and
upon determining that the first hardware device is restored, activate the respective application even when the second hardware device is not yet restored ([0068] activate an application and cause a new user interface to appear from an inactive state of the processor and facilitate direct access to the functionality of the device corresponding to the location and direction of a swipe received during the low power state of the device e.g., while processor is disabled and image frame is displayed and [0091]-[0092] the co-processor may display the image on the display of the electronic device while the processor loads the operating system. In this way, an image such as a logo image can be displayed by the display of the device even before the operating system of the device is operational. A set of image frames previously generated by the processor may then be displayed while the electronic device is in the sleep state e.g., or while the processor is in a low power state).
As per claim 7, Weiss further teaches wherein the processor is configured to
activate a predetermined application if a first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the predetermined application has been restored ([0079]-[0080] activate application when processor is woken up) and
display the screen for the predetermined application after the operation for powering on the information processing apparatus is performed ([0023] main processor returns to full power wake state and then refreshes portion of the image data displayed on the display and [0066] wake up processor then brighten display of image frame).
As per claim 9, Weiss further teaches wherein the processor is configured to activate the respective application if the first hardware device of the information processing apparatus has been restored and the information processing apparatus is powered on and an instruction to activate the respective application is given after information indicating a state of an executed program is stored in a memory, a function of supplying, to the memory, power necessary for the memory to hold the information without supplying power to the device-is executed, and the information processing apparatus is turned off ([0018] in a low power state of the display and/or processor, continuous or prolonged display of information can be provided while reducing power consumption by pre-storing the information being displayed using a data structure, the data structure having been generated in advance during a normal power state e.g., a wake state of the device. The data structure may include image frames and associated scheduled e.g., future display times for displaying the image frames. In this way, the low power state of the display corresponds to a low power state of the device in which the display appears to be active and [0052] the data structure may be generated during a wake state of the electronic device e.g., during which the processor is active. During a subsequent low power state e.g., during which the processor is in a low power or inactive state, the co-processor may retrieve the image frames from the data structure based on the scheduled display times. In order to update the display during the low power state of the display and/or the low power state or inactive state of processor, co-processor may retrieve an updated image from the framebuffer and display the retrieved image data on the display).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0124495) (hereinafter Kim).
As per claim 2, Weiss does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to not activate the respective application if the first hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored.
However, Kim teaches wherein the processor is configured to not activate the respective application if the first hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored ([0111] configuring the selected application to not be woken up in the display power off state).
Kim and Weiss are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiss in view of Kim because it would provide a way of controlling power of an electronic device which calculates and provides the current consumption value according to each application type based on the power state of the electronic device.
As per claim 8, Weiss further teaches wherein the processor is configured to
activate a predetermined application if a first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the predetermined application has been restored ([0079]-[0080] activate application when processor is woken up) and
display the screen for the predetermined application after the operation for powering on the information processing apparatus is performed ([0023] main processor returns to full power wake state and then refreshes portion of the image data displayed on the display and [0066] wake up processor then brighten display of image frame).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Gee et al. (US 2008/0244227) (hereinafter Gee).
As per claim 3, Weiss further teaches wherein the processor is also configured to execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has been restored when the instruction to execute the respective application is given ([0018] main processor is active and executes an application and [0023] main processor is in full power wake state and execute a device function corresponding to received input and [0027] execute clock application while the device is operating in different power states).
Weiss does not explicitly teach not execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored, even when an instruction to execute the respective application is given after the application is activated.
However, Gee teaches not execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored, even when an instruction to execute the respective application is given after the application is activated ([0025] do not execute application program code while processor is in a sleep state).
Gee and Weiss are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiss in view of Gee because it would provide more efficient allocation of processing functions between a primary processor and a secondary processor to achieve more efficient power consumption.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Kim in view of Gee.
As per claim 4, Weiss further teaches wherein the processor is also configured to execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has been restored when the instruction to execute the respective application is given ([0018] main processor is active and executes an application and [0023] main processor is in full power wake state and execute a device function corresponding to received input and [0027] execute clock application while the device is operating in different power states).
Weiss in view of Kim do not explicitly teach not execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored, even when an instruction to execute the respective application is given after the application is activated.
However, Gee teaches not execute the respective application if the second hardware device of the information processing apparatus has not been restored, even when an instruction to execute the respective application is given after the application is activated ([0025] do not execute application program code while processor is in a sleep state).
Gee and Weiss are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiss in view of Kim in view of Gee because it would provide more efficient allocation of processing functions between a primary processor and a secondary processor to achieve more efficient power consumption.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Suryavanshi et al. (US 2014/0222952) (hereinafter Suryavanshi as previously cited).
As per claim 5, Weiss does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to:
when an instruction to activate an unregistered application is given, and when a first hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to display a screen of the unregistered application is not registered in the information processing apparatus, register the first hardware device for the unregistered application accessed by the activated unregistered application before the screen is displayed after all devices had been restored for the unregistered application; and
register a second hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to execute the unregistered application accessed by the unregistered application while the unregistered application is being accessed by the second hardware device for the unregistered application.
However, Suryavanshi teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
when an instruction to activate an unregistered application is given, and when a first hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to display a screen of the unregistered application is not registered in the information processing apparatus, register the first hardware device for the unregistered application accessed by the activated unregistered application before the screen is displayed after all devices had been restored for the unregistered application ([0007] and [0062] register device and register unregistered application); and
register a second hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to execute the unregistered application accessed by the unregistered application while the unregistered application is being accessed by the second hardware device for the unregistered application ([0007] and [0062] register device and register unregistered application).
Suryavanshi and Weiss are both concerned with computer application environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiss in view of Suryavanshi because it would provide a framework for using a server to create and maintain equivalence classes among applications operating on multiple devices that have registered with the server. The server may use equivalence classes to select an application on a target device (the "recipient application") that has the highest probability of being able to receive shared media from an application operating on the originator device (i.e., the "originator application") based on the recipient application's similarity to the originator application. This further enhances privacy protections and the overall user experience by enabling the server to select an appropriate recipient application on the target device without the originator device or its user having to know anything about the target device's characteristics and functionalities.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Kim in view of Suryavanshi.
As per claim 6, Weiss in view of Kim do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to:
when an instruction to activate an unregistered application is given, and when a first hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to display a screen of the unregistered application is not registered in the information processing apparatus, register the first hardware for the unregistered application accessed by the activated unregistered application before the screen is displayed after all devices had been restored for the unregistered application; and
register a second hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to execute the unregistered application accessed by the unregistered application while the unregistered application is being accessed by the second hardware device for the unregistered application.
However, Suryavanshi teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
when an instruction to activate an unregistered application is given, and when a first hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to display a screen of the unregistered application is not registered in the information processing apparatus, register the first hardware device for the unregistered application accessed by the activated unregistered application before the screen is displayed after all devices had been restored for the unregistered application ([0007] and [0062] register device and register unregistered application); and
register a second hardware device for the unregistered application necessary to execute the unregistered application accessed by the unregistered application while the unregistered application is being accessed by the second hardware device for the unregistered application ([0007] and [0062] register device and register unregistered application).
Suryavanshi and Weiss are both concerned with computer application environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiss in view of Kim in view of Suryavanshi because it would provide a framework for using a server to create and maintain equivalence classes among applications operating on multiple devices that have registered with the server. The server may use equivalence classes to select an application on a target device (the "recipient application") that has the highest probability of being able to receive shared media from an application operating on the originator device (i.e., the "originator application") based on the recipient application's similarity to the originator application. This further enhances privacy protections and the overall user experience by enabling the server to select an appropriate recipient application on the target device without the originator device or its user having to know anything about the target device's characteristics and functionalities.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Nakano et al. (US 2004/0100479) (hereinafter Nakano)
As per claim 13, Weiss further teaches wherein the processor is configured to upon determining that the first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the selected application is restored, activate the selected application even when the second hardware device necessary to execute the selected application is not yet restored ([0068] activate an application and cause a new user interface to appear from an inactive state of the processor and facilitate direct access to the functionality of the device corresponding to the location and direction of a swipe received during the low power state of the device e.g., while processor is disabled and image frame is displayed and [0091]-[0092] the co-processor may display the image on the display of the electronic device while the processor loads the operating system. In this way, an image such as a logo image can be displayed by the display of the device even before the operating system of the device is operational. A set of image frames previously generated by the processor may then be displayed while the electronic device is in the sleep state e.g., or while the processor is in a low power state).
Weiss does not explicitly teach:
after receiving the operation to power on the information processing apparatus, display a menu screen including the plurality of applications;
upon receiving a selection operation selecting one of the plurality of applications on the menu screen, determine whether the first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the selected application is restored.
However, Nakano teaches:
after receiving the operation to power on the information processing apparatus, display a menu screen including the plurality of applications ([0498] and [0524] display menu when power is turned on and [0532] display applications as menu items);
upon receiving a selection operation selecting one of the plurality of applications on the menu screen ([0505] select menu item and activate application program corresponding to the selected menu item), determine whether the first hardware device necessary to display a screen for the selected application is restored ([0498] and [0524] display menu when power is turned on).
Nakano and Weiss are both concerned with computer application environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiss in view of Kim in view of Nakano because it would provide an easy-to-use menu display which allows easy understanding of arrangement of menu items used for a portable information terminal by enhancing the operability of menu display used for a portable information terminal equipped with a touch panel.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the abstract idea rejections are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 9, Applicant argues that the instant claim limitations of activating the respective application on the display screen even when the second hardware device is not yet restored cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully traverses. The activate/activating limitations of the instant independent claims are not being interpreted as being performed in the human mind. Rather, they are being interpreted as extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the instant claim limitations are analogous to the USPTO Abstract Idea Example 37. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 37 is directed to a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface which is wholly different than the instant claims which are directed to activating applications. Just because Example 37 and the instant claims involve/recite computer applications does not make them analogous. Applicant has failed to explain why Example 37 is analogous to the instant claims other than simply stating that they both involve/recite computer applications. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 10, Applicant argues that the instantly amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by allowing an application to be displayed on a display screen before an execution device of the application is restored to save time during restoration of the device. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Nowhere in the instant disclosure is there support for the statement that the “application to be displayed on a display screen before an execution device of the application is restored to save time during restoration of the device”. Applicant merely makes an unsubstantiated conclusory statement. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the Office has not proffered any evidentiary support for a conclusion that the claims do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The examiner respectfully traverses. The instant claims include limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims, and their limitations when considered separately and in combination, are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims makes the claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al. (US 2023/0409370) disclose the processor is configured to restore the first application based on the file loaded to the second memory during the switching from the standby mode to the active mode, terminate a second application executed in another virtual machine based on the entry into the standby mode, turn on the other virtual machine based on the switching from the standby mode to the active mode, and execute the second application after an operating system is executed.
Karppanen (US 10,691,750) discloses maintaining information regarding content navigation history and state of a browser application.
Kwak et al. (US 2013/0159902) disclose user terminal includes a display unit for displaying a plurality of UI lines, each including displayed objects of different categories, and a background image corresponding to one of the objects displayed on the plurality of UI lines; and a control unit for controlling the display unit to change the objects displayed on the plurality of UI lines in accordance with an update state of the objects, reconfigure the changed objects, and display the reconfigured objects; wherein a length of each of the plurality of UI lines is changeable individually.
Hobson (US 2012/0102347) disclose a computing machine to power a memory to retain a process state of the computing machine if the computing machine is in a sleep state and transfer the process state from the memory to a non-volatile storage device, where the computing machine remains in the sleep state as the process state is transferred from the memory to the non- volatile storage device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 March 5, 2026