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 .
This final office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 12/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11, 12 and dependent claims 2-10, 13-20 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
-- has was -- in claim 10 line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an electronic device to: obtain…” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “based on the second process having the first resource requirement for the first computing resource”. It is unclear what is the relationship / dependency between the first process and second process or first process states and first resource requirement of the second process. In fact, claim doesn’t indicate any change in the second process state or fulfill the resource requirement of the second process.
Claim 1 recites “computing memory resource” and “system resource”. It is unclear if the system resource is referring to the computing memory resource or system resource is referring to another type of resource e.g. resources for the system including the memory resource.
Claims 11 and 12 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
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 1-7, 9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (US 2021/0191776 A1, hereafter Levin) in view of Zhang et al (US 2020/0241925 A1, hereafter Zhang).
Levin was cited in the last office action.
As per claim 1, Levin teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a memory management method comprising ([0019] memory management):
obtaining a first resource requirement that a second process awaits ([0029] process is in waiting state, memory resource is needed [0027] processes in operating system [0083] how much memory is needed), wherein the first resource requirement is for a first computing memory resource ([0029] process, memory resource is needed);
when a first process state of a first process is a first state ([0027] process data, status of that process [0028] process, state of process, new, ready, running, waiting, terminated; fig. 6 process state), and when the first process has been in the first process state for at least a preset time ([0034] process run-time remaining i.e. indicates how long the process has been running ), and based on the second process having the first resource requirement for the first computing memory resource ([0029] process is in waiting state, memory resource is needed [0027] processes in operating system [0083] how much memory is needed):
changing the first process state from the first state to a second state ([0029] process may move from the wait state to the ready state i.e. second state [0057] process waiting, begins to execute); and
swapping out the first computing memory resource that is of the first process ([0053] swapping out memory [0081] process requires memory content to be swapped out, execute memory swap between the memory 108 and the secondary storage 124, move memory content out to the secondary storage to free up the memory [0107] [0108]); and
when a released first system resource meets a second resource requirement of the first process and the first process state is the second state ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed again i.e. process state: not executing to executing [0081] process, requires memory):
changing the first process state ([0029] process may move from the wait state to the ready state i.e. second state [0057] process waiting, begins to execute ); and
swapping in a second computing memory resource, wherein the second resource requirement is for the second computing memory resource ([0081] process, requires memory content to be swapped in, execute, memory swap between the memory and second storage, process needs more memory to execute than that is available in the memory [0107] [0108]).
Levin doesn’t specifically teach the first process has been in the first process state for at least a preset time.
Zhang, however, teaches process has been in the first state for at least a preset time (fig. 2 process is in the running state-yes, whether the maintaining time of the running state reaches the upper limit of the preset time threshold value - Yes):
changing process state and swapping out the memory of the first process (fig. 2 hardware resource in the system occupied by the process is released automatically [0065] hardware resource in a system of mobile terminal occupied by the process; fig. 6 terminal memory 20 fig. 7 terminal 1200 memory 120 [0066] step S300 performed - change in state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Levin with the teachings of Zhang of hardware resource of a mobile system occupied by the process is released if maintaining time of the running state reaches the upper threshold to improve efficiency and allow swapping out the memory if the first process has been in the first process state for at least a preset time to the method of Levin as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of releasing resource after maintaining process state for a preset threshold to the memory management method taught by Levin to yield expected result and improved efficiency and resource utilization.
As per claim 2, Levin teaches detecting that the released first system resource meets the second resource requirement ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed again i.e. process state: not executing [0081] process, requires memory); and
changing, in response to detecting that the released first system resource meets the second resource requirement, the first process state to a third state ([0081] process has completed execution, does not need to use the memory content i.e. state change from running to completed/terminated [0083] memory, process, use, memory free / needed to be swapped, needed by the next queue) before swapping in the second computing memory resource ([0081] move the memory content out to free up the memory).
As per claim 3, Levin teaches detecting that the released first system resource meets the second resource requirement ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed again i.e. process state: not executing [0081] process, requires memory); and
in response to detecting that the released first system resource meets the second resource requirement ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed again i.e. process state: not executing [0081] process, requires memory):
changing the first process state to the first state ([0081] process has completed execution, does not need to use the memory content i.e. state change from running to completed/terminated [0083] memory, process, use, memory free / needed to be swapped, needed by the next queue); and
allocating, a second resource to the first process ([0057] additional memory is allocated for the process).
As per claim 4, Levin teaches swapping out a storage space for the first process ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed [0107) ; and
storing process information of the first process in the storage space ([0028] process control block, stores process specific information e.g. process identification, process state etc).
As per claim 5, Liven teaches wherein a resource of the second resource requirement comprises at least one of the second computing memory resource, an input/output (IO) resource, or a lock resource ([0052] memory resource, number of bytes is needed).
As per claim 6, Levin teaches wherein after changing the first process state to the second state, the memory management method further comprises:
identifying that the second resource requirement is for the second computing memory resource ([0081] process, requires memory content to be swapped in, execute, memory swap between the memory and second storage, process needs more memory to execute than that is available in the memory [0107] [0108]);
detecting that the released first system resource meets the second computing memory resource that the first process awaits ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed again i.e. process state: not executing [0081] process, requires memory), wherein the first process state is the second state ([0029] process may move from the wait state to the ready state i.e. second state [0057] process waiting, begins to execute ); and
further changing, in response to identifying that the second resource requirement is for the second computing memory resource and detecting that the released first system resource meets the second computing memory resource, the status of the first process ( [0081] process has completed execution, does not need to use the memory content i.e. state change from running to completed/terminated [0083] memory, process, use, memory free / needed to be swapped, needed by the next queue) before swapping in the second computing memory resource ([0081] move the memory content out to free up the memory).
Claim 7 recites elements similar to claim 6 applied to specific IO resource (Levin: process, need, access certain I/O resources that need to be retrieved from storage [0056] ). Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 9, Liven teaches wherein the process information comprises at least one of a process identifier, a time for which the first process is the first process state, or a data information status of the first process ([0028] process control block, stores the process-specific data, process identification data [0027] information associated with a process run / wait queue, process data, status of process).
Claim 11 recites an electronic device comprising: a memory, configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to perform elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that,
Claim 13 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 8, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin in view of Zhang , and further in view of Greco (US 2017/0031731 A1).
As per claim 8, Levin teaches the memory management method further comprises:
identifying that the second resource requirement is for the lock resource ([0081] process, requires memory content to be swapped in, execute, memory swap between the memory and second storage, process needs more memory to execute than that is available in the memory [0107] [0108]);
detecting that the released first system resource meets the lock resource that the first process awaits ([0053] swapping out memory, so that sufficient memory is available when the process is actually executed again i.e. process state: not executing [0081] process, requires memory), wherein the first process state is the second state ([0029] process may move from the wait state to the ready state i.e. second state [0057] process waiting, begins to execute ); and
further changing, in response to identifying that the second resource requirement is for the lock resource and detecting that the released first system resource meets the lock resource, the status of the first process ( [0081] process has completed execution, does not need to use the memory content i.e. state change from running to completed/terminated [0083] memory, process, use, memory free / needed to be swapped, needed by the next queue) before swapping in the second computing memory resource ([0081] move the memory content out to free up the memory).
Levin and Zhang, in combination, do not specifically teach lock resource.
Greco, however, teaches lock resource ([0021] managing access to a shareable resource, concurrently executing thread, shareable resource being controlled by a lock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Levin and Zhang with the teachings of Greco of shared resource being controlled by lock to improve resource efficiency and allow using lock to manage resource for process to the method of Levin and Zhang as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because the teachings of managing resource using lock as taught by Greco to the method of Levin and Zhang to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
Claim 20 recites computer program product for elements similar to claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin in view of Zhang , and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0098203 A1, hereafter Chang).
Chang was cited in the last office action.
As per claim 10, Levin teaches wherein the memory management method further comprises:
obtaining a size of computing memory occupied by the first process ([0027] memory usage data [0028] processor-specific information, memory management data [0083] how much memory each process will use [0063] accounting data, significant memory is needed) and a time for which the first process state has was the first state ([0034] process run-time remaining [0056] process that needs additional time to execute 0063] accounting data, significant processing time is needed i.e. process execution state duration).
Levin and Zhang, in combination, do not specifically teach obtaining a swap-out priority of the first process based on the size and the time; and determining, based on the swap-out priority, whether to designate the first process as a to-be-swapped-out first process.
Chang, however, teaches obtaining a swap-out priority of the first process based on the size and the time ([0021] determine dynamic threshold, indices related to a page in need of swapping e.g. to be swapped out, size of cache, free memory in the kernel space, I/O congestion status related to swap area, size of hardware used memory, whether it is real-time); and
determining, based on the swap-out priority, a to-be-swapped-out first process in the first process ([0022] determine a priority level of the page in need of swapping based on dynamic threshold; fig. 3 high priority-yes 374 select swap area from high to low 380).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Levin and Zhang with the teachings of Chang of determining priority of pages in need of swap out based on cache size, free memory, swap area, process class e.g. whether it is real time i.e. duration / time to improve efficiency and allow obtaining a swap-out priority of the first process based on the size and the time; and determining, based on the swap-out priority, a to-be-swapped-out first process in the first process to the method of Levin and Zhang as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the priority based swapping as taught by Chang to the memory management method of swapping memory associated with the processes as taught by Levin and Zhang to yield predictable result of memory management method of prioritized memory swapping and motivated by improved performance.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of 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.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
The previous 112(f) interpretations have been maintained because claim doesn’t recite “computing device” as argued by the Applicant in the Remarks (See p.11) filed on 12/17/2025.
The previous 35 USC 101 abstract idea objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195