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 .
Detail Information
On 11/26/2025, an amendment is filed in Application 18/186,944. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-13 and 15-20 have been amended, and claims 5 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 are now pending.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
Applicant argued that the claimed process meets the two-prongs teat because:
2A: The process increases retention of applications.
2B: The Decision Tree Generation/Selection is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner disagrees:
2A:
The court has found following to be example of abstract idea/mental process: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
A claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Here, the claim recites the limitation of “determining when a memory of the terminal device reaches a low memory state;” and “when the second process meets a predetermined condition,” which is collecting and comparing know information. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea/ mental process.
2B:
Courts have found following to be Well-understood Routine, Conventional Activity: MPEP 2106.05(d):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Here, the claims recite the limitation of “obtaining information about a plurality of processes of a first application running on the terminal device, wherein the plurality of processes include a first process and a second process;
Killing a first subset of plurality of processes of the first application and retaining a second subset of processes of the first application based on the obtained information about the plurality of processes of the first application;
Controlling the second process, wherein the second process is a previously killed process of the first application, wherein the controlling the second process comprises at least one of the following:
Prohibiting the second process from being started;”
which can be considered as storing and retrieving information from memory and Receiving or transmitting data over a system network. Therefore, they are Well-understood Routine, Conventional Activity.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The Decision Tree Generation/Selection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental step or abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
Determining when a memory of the terminal device reaches a low memory state… when the second process meets a predetermined condition;
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (a process control method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
obtaining information about a plurality of processes of a first application running on the terminal device, wherein the plurality of processes include a first process and a second process;
Killing a first subset of plurality of processes of the first application and retaining a second subset of processes of the first application based on the obtained information about the plurality of processes of the first application;
Controlling the second process, wherein the second process is a previously killed process of the first application, wherein the controlling the second process comprises at least one of the following:
Prohibiting the second process from being started…
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 2 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
wherein the information about the first process comprises one of the following processes: a main process; a foreground process or a background process; an audio interaction process; a navigation process; an upload or download process; a step counting process; adj information, or adj Type information.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 2, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 3 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
marking a package name and a process name of the second process;
wherein controlling the second process comprising: controlling the second process based on a marking result of the second process.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 3, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 4 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein a duration in which starting of the second process is prohibited is for a first time period.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 6 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
determining whether the second process is a user-perceivable process; and if the second process is a user-perceivable process, allowing the second process to be started; and if the second process is not a user-perceivable process, prohibiting the second process from being started.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and 6, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1, 6 and 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
determining whether the second process is a user-perceivable process; and if the second process is a user-perceivable process, allowing the second process to be started; or if the second process is not a user-perceivable process, prohibiting the second process from being started.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claims 1 and 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1 and 6, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 6.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1, 6 and 8 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
marking a first moment at which the second process was killed; and when the second process is determined to be user-perceivable, allowing the second process to be started comprises: obtaining a second moment at which the second process is to be started; and if an interval between the second moment and the first moment is less than a first threshold, increasing a quantity of valid restarts of the second process by 1.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claims 1 and 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 8, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 1, 6, and 8 and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 6.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
further comprising: obtaining the quantity of valid restarts of the second process; and if the quantity of valid restart times is greater than a second threshold, determining to retain the second process.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claims 1, 6, and 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 9, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 10-13 and 15-18 are directed to a device comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1-4, and 6-9 are configured to perform. Claims 10-13 and 15-18 recite the same limitations as claims 1-4, and 6-9, respectively; therefore, claims 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a device without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-4, and 6-9. See above.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a device comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1-2 are configured to perform. Claims 19 and 20 recite the same limitations as claims 1-2, respectively; therefore, claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a device without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-2. See above.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 19, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 19.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 21 and 19 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 21 recites the additional element of:
Allowing the second process to be started if the second process is a user-aware process.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 21, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 19, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 19.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 22 and 19 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 22 recites the additional element of:
Mark a package name and a process name of the second process and to control the second process based on a marking result of the second process.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 22 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 19, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
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 1-4, 10-13, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn US Patent 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171.
18/186,944
Hahn US Patent 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171
Claim 1
A process control method of a terminal device, wherein the terminal device runs at last two processes, the method comprising:
Hahn Fig. 1 c3:1-15;
Determining when a memory of the terminal device reaches a low memory state;
Apparao teaches determine a low memory state. (see Fig. 2 and 3, p0020-p0047)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Apparao’s teaching with method of Hahn in order to provide enough free memory for a stable system.
Starting a low memory control process when the terminal device memory is determined to have reaches the low memory state, wherein the low memory control process comprises:
Apparao see Fig. 2 and 3, p0020-p0047;
obtaining information about a first process and a third process of a first application running on a terminal device;
Hahn Fig. 1 c3:1-15; Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c8:5-60;
killing a first subset of the plurality of processes of the first application and retaining a second subset of processes of the first application based on the obtained information about he plurality of processes of the first application;
Hahn Fig. 3, c8:5-30;
Controlling the second process, wherein the second process is a previously killed process of the first application, wherein the controlling the second process comprises at least one of the following:
Prohibiting the second process from being started; or
Allowing the second process to be started when the second process meets a predetermined condition.
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c8:5-60;
Apparao teaches re-launch of terminated process based on user feed-back. (see p0043);
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Apparao’s teaching with method of Hahn in order to adjust system based on user request.
Claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein the information about the plurality of processes of the first application comprises one of the following processes:
a main process;
a foreground process or a background process;
an audio interaction process;
a navigation process;
an upload or download process;
a step counting process;
adj information, or adj Type information.
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c8:5-60;
Claim 3
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: marking a package name and a process name of the second process; wherein controlling the second process of comprise: controlling the second process based on a marking result of the second process.
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c7:15-c8:60;
Claim 4
The method according to claim 1, wherein a duration in which starting of the second process is prohibited is for a first time period.
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c7:15-c8:60;
As per claim 10, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
As per claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2. See rejection above.
As per claim 12, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3. See rejection above.
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See rejection above.
As per claims 19-20, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2. See rejections above.
18/186,944
Hahn US Patent 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171
Claim 22
The non=transitory computer readable medium according to claim 19, wherein allowing the second process to be started when the second process meets a predetermined condition comprises
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c7:15-c8:60;
Allowing the second process to be started if the second process is a user-aware process.
Apparao see Fig. 2 and 3, p0020-p0047; p0043
Claim 22
The non-transitory computer readable medium to claim 19, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor further causes the device to:
Mark a package name and a process name of the second process and to control the second process based on a marking result o the second process.
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c7:15-c8:60;
Apparao see Fig. 2 and 3, p0020-p0047; p0043
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn US 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171, Synytskyy US 2013/0067089 and Ramesh US 2013/0332942.
18/186,944
Hahn US 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171, Synytskyy US 2013/0067089 and Ramesh US 2013/0332942
Claim 6
The method according to claim 1, wherein the allowing the second process to be started when the second process meets a predetermined condition comprises: determining whether the second process is a user-perceivable process; and
if the second process is a user-perceivable process, allowing the second process to be started; and
if the second process is not a user-perceivable process, prohibiting the second process from being started.
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c7:15-c8:60;
Synytskyy teaches kill background application is prohibited from restarted up. (see Synytskyy p0052)
Ramesh teaches assign background app with lower priority than foreground app. (see Ramesh 1B, p0025)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include teaching of Synytskyy and Ramesh with method of Hahn in order to allow user effectively manage system resources.
Claim 7
The method according to claim 6, wherein the user-perceivable process comprises one of the following processes: a foreground process, a process displayed on an interface, an alarm process, an upload process, a download process, or a process related with a foreground interface.
Ramesh p0025
As per claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6. See rejection above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7. See rejection above.
Claims 8, 9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn US 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171, Synytskyy US 2013/0067089, Ramesh US 2013/0332942 and Mutnuru US 2021/0349796.
18/186,944
Hahn US 7,389,297 in view of Apparao US Publication 2017/0286171, Synytskyy US 2013/0067089, Ramesh US 2013/0332942, and Mutnuru US 2021/0349796
Claim 8
The method according to claim 6, further comprising:
marking a first moment at which the second process was killed; and
Hahn Fig. 2- Fig. 4 c7:15-c8:60;
when the second process is determined to be user-perceivable, allowing the second process to be started comprises:
obtaining a second moment at which the second process is to be started; and
Mutnuru teaches a restart threshold that control the number of time that a faculty component can be restarted in the last N time interval. See Mutnuru p0073
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mutnuru’s teaching with method of Hahn in order to allow user effectively manage system resources.
if an interval between the second moment and the first moment is less than a first threshold, increasing a quantity of valid restarts of the second process by 1.
see Mutnuru p0073
Claim 9
The method according to claim 8, further comprising: obtaining the quantity of valid restarts of the second process; and if the quantity of valid restart times is greater than a second threshold, determining to retain the second process.
see Mutnuru p0073
As per claims 17-18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8-9. See rejections above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194