DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. The prior-filed application is U.S. Application No. 17/573,330 (filed on 1/11/2022); which in turn is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/567,020 (filed on 9/11/2019); which in turn is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/651,637 (filed on 7/17/2017); which in turn is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/257,557 (filed on 4/21/2014); which in turn claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/813,909 (filed on 4/19/2013).
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/4/2023, 4/25/2024 and 8/13/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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(s) 1-20 is/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.
More specifically,
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12 and 20 recite(s) the terms “relatively less complex” and “relatively more complex”. This term seems to be vague or unclear or incomplete and its meaning or metes and bounds is not understandable. This is because it is unclear what constitutes something to be relative more or less complex. For examining purposes, the terms are being interpreted as different complexity levels based on calculation time, calculation length, etc. Applicant may amend the claim by reciting “selecting a calculation level”; or by any other appropriate correction.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12 and 20 recite(s) the terms “evaluating an interval” and “evaluate an interval”. This term seems to be vague or unclear or incomplete and its meaning or metes and bounds is not understandable. This is because it is unclear what is being evaluated with respect to the interval. For examining purposes, the terms are being interpreted as evaluating any aspect related to an interval such as the length of the interval, etc. Applicant may amend the claim by reciting more specifically what aspect of the interval is being evaluated; or by any other appropriate correction.
Claims 3-9 and 13-19 are also rejected because they depend on the above rejected claims 1 and 11 and they do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, claim(s) 1-20 are eligible as per the Step 1 (statutory) analysis.
However, as per the Step 2A Prong One (abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon) analysis, the claimed invention in claim(s) 1-20 is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea); this is because claims 1 and 11 recite “reading, from a memory, one or more operating parameters of a configuration for the electronic device; sensing, via one or more sensors, one or more operating factors of the electronic device: selecting a relatively less complex calculation level or a relatively more complex calculative level; calculating, using the selected calculation level, a value of an operating parameter of the one or more operating parameters; evaluating an interval at which the value of the operating parameter is calculated; and updating the interval based on the evaluating.” These limitations constitute receiving/gathering data and make calculations based on the received data, as well as evaluating and updating data, all of which fall under the sub-category of abstract ideas, namely mental processes and mathematical concepts.
As per the Step 2A Prong Two (practical application) analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim(s) 1 and 11 simply recite data gathering and manipulation which are not incorporated into any such practical application which applies the gathered and manipulated data.
As per the Step 2B (significantly more) analysis, claim(s) 1 and 11 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite functional units where the functions (of gather and manipulating data) are related to one another, without the recitation of any non-generic hardware that incorporates such data gathering and manipulation.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 do/does not recite subject matter that cures the 101 deficiency of claim(s) 1 and 11.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0279226) (hereinafter “Ofek”) in view of Vick et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0073883) (hereinafter “Vick”).
Regarding method claim 1 and system claim 11 (corresponding to method claim 1), Ofek teaches a method of an electronic device, the method comprising: reading, from a memory, one or more operating parameters of a configuration for the electronic device; (Fig. 8, 9 - - read system settings, where system settings are the operating parameters used in the configuration of the electronic device)
sensing, via one or more sensors, one or more operating factors of the electronic device; (Para. 107 - - operating factors of electronic device are sensed; Para. 28 - - sensor unit is used)
selecting a relatively less complex calculation level or a relatively more complex calculative level; (Para. 122 - - various methods at different complexity levels are used to determine/calculate; also see related 112 rejection, where “relatively less complex” has been interpreted to mean different complexity levels based on calculation time, calculation length, etc.)
calculating, using the selected calculation level, a value of an operating parameter of the one or more operating parameters; (Para. 122 - - selected complexity level of calculation is used to calculate operating parameters)
evaluating an interval at which the value of the operating parameter is calculated; (Para. 122 - - efficiency is determined to evaluate duration, i.e. interval, of calculation; also see related 112 rejection, where “evaluating an interval” has been interpreted to mean evaluating any aspect related to an interval)
But Ofek does not explicitly teach and updating the interval based on the evaluating.
However, Vick teaches and updating the interval based on the evaluating. (Para. 54 - - machine learning, i.e. calculation/optimization, procedure may be updated, i.e. interval of calculation is updated)
Ofek and Vick are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain performing calculations with respect to power optimization of electronic devices.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Ofek, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Vick.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to save power during computation, as suggested by Vick (Para. 5).
Regarding method claim 2 and system claim 12 (corresponding to method claim 2), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Vick further teaches wherein the calculating at the relatively less complex calculation level uses relatively less energy compared to the relatively more complex calculation level. (Para. 37 - - optimized code, i.e. less complex calculation, reduces amount of energy to execute the code, i.e. uses less energy; also see related 112 rejection, where “relatively less complex” has been interpreted to mean different complexity levels based on calculation time, calculation length, etc.)
Regarding method claim 3 and system claim 13 (corresponding to method claim 3), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Vick further teaches evaluating a tradeoff of an improvement in overall operation of the electronic device using the calculated operating parameter versus a cost associated with performing the calculating. (Para. 68 - - the optimization procedures may be performed only if the energy costs associated with performing the optimizations do not exceed the energy gains resulting from the optimizations, i.e. cost versus gains, i.e. improvement, is evaluated when performing optimization procedures, i.e. calculations)
Regarding method claim 4 and system claim 14 (corresponding to method claim 4), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Vick further teaches wherein the evaluating a tradeoff determines whether the electronic device is either more power efficient calculating the value of the operating parameter and operating the electronic device using the value of the operating parameter or the electronic device is more power efficient foregoing the calculating and operating the electronic device using a preexisting value of the operating parameter. (Para. 60 - - optimization, i.e. calculation, may be canceled, i.e. foregoing the calculating, if it is less efficient to perform the optimization, i.e. calculating)
Regarding method claim 5 and system claim 15 (corresponding to method claim 5), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Vick further teaches wherein the updating the interval includes reducing a duration in time of the interval. (Para. 37 - - updating optimization procedure includes running code more efficiently/faster, i.e. reducing a duration in time of the interval)
Regarding method claim 6 and system claim 16 (corresponding to method claim 6), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Vick further teaches wherein the updating the interval includes increasing a duration in time of the interval. (Para. 54 - - calculation procedure may be updated, where procedure includes duration in time of the interval of calculation)
Regarding method claim 7 and system claim 17 (corresponding to method claim 7), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Ofek further teaches wherein at least one operating parameter of the one or more operating parameters includes a timing of a switch for converting input energy to output energy. (Para. 108 - - switches are determined to be started and stopped, i.e. timing of switches)
Regarding method claim 8 and system claim 18 (corresponding to method claim 8), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Ofek further teaches wherein the electronic device is a power converter. (Para. 28 - - electronic device is a power converter)
Regarding method claim 9 and system claim 19 (corresponding to method claim 9), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Ofek further teaches wherein at least one operating factor of the one or more operating factors includes a power conversion efficiency, a harmonics level, a temperature, an output voltage, a stored energy level, an inductance-based energy storage level, a storage capacitor voltage, a start-up energy storage level, an output ripple level, a voltage across a load, a current draw of the load, a rate of discharge of a storage capacitor, a voltage level of an input power source, a current level of the input power source, a frequency of the input power source, a rate of change or slope of the input power source, a resonant frequency of an LLC converter, a change in the resonant frequency of the LLC converter, a temperature of the LLC converter, a present position along an input alternating current waveform, a fluctuation profile of a power consumption of the load, a power factor, information or one or more commands provided by the load or a user, an over-voltage condition of an input of the electronic device, an over-voltage condition of an output of the electronic device, an over-current condition of the input of the electronic device, an over-current condition of the output of the electronic device, one or more characteristics of a mechanical noise, one or more characteristics of a vibration, a noise profile of the input power source, or an electromagnetic interference level. (Para. 113 - - operating factors include power conversion efficiency, etc.)
Regarding method claim 10 and system claim 20 (corresponding to method claim 10), the combination of Ofek and Vick teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Vick further teaches wherein the selecting a relatively less complex calculation level or a relatively more complex calculative level is based on a battery level. (Para. 126 - - determination is made when an energy storage device, i.e. battery, is sufficiently charged, i.e. battery level)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0125074 by Mansouri et al., which discloses designing digital circuitry with an activity sensor (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0052873 by Wong, which discloses dynamic power savings based on location (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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 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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119