DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 108776600) and Jokinen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0355938).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Feng discloses an arithmetic apparatus (as well as a program operating method as required by Claim 6) comprising:
a memory capable of reading and writing at high speed (page 8, first full paragraph; i.e., a high-speed random access memory);
a non-volatile storage device that stores an OS that is an operating system not compatible with real-time processing (page 8, first full paragraph; i.e., the operating system is not said to be a real-time operating system), a management object program, a background program that executes the management object program, and a management program that manages the management object program; and
a central processing unit that executes the OS, the management object program, the background program, and the management program (page 8, third full paragraph; i.e., the processor 110 is the control center of the mobile terminal and executes the functions within the mobile terminal),
wherein the background program generates one or more temporary processes by the OS (page 8, last paragraph; i.e., creating a process for an application in the application list), secures a management area which is an area in the memory (page 9, first paragraph; i.e., the application program list is stored in memory [equivalent to the claimed “management area” in the memory]; placing the application program list in a particular area of memory is equivalent to the claimed securing step), stores the management object program in the memory management area (page 8, last paragraph; i.e., applications [the claimed “management object program”] are stored in a list; this area of storage is equivalent to the claimed “management area”), selects a selection process that is one of the temporary processes (page 9, second paragraph; i.e., a process corresponding to the chosen application is selected to run together with the application), and associates the selection process with the management object program stored in the memory management area (page 9, second paragraph; i.e., a process is respectively created for the application A, the application B, and the application C [the different “management object programs”], for example, creating a process 1, a process 2, and a process 3 [the “temporary processes”] respectively corresponding to the application A, the application B, and the application C [the processes are “associated” with each of the applications]), and
the management program causes the management object program associated with the selection process to operate, without generating a new process (i.e., the process associated with the selected application was pre-created and therefore is not a “new process”), when the management program receives a command to start the management object program (page 9, third and fourth paragraphs; i.e., in Step S303, the management program detects whether a start instruction [“command to start the management object program”] corresponding to an application in the application list is received; in Step S304, when a start instruction corresponding to an application program in the application program list is detected, the management program searches for a process corresponding to the application program and controls the process to enter a working mode from a sleep mode), and
the selection process further acquires a part of the management area (page 9, second-fourth paragraphs; i.e., the selection process selects one of the temporary processes 1, 2, or 3 and loads it into the memory [it “acquires” that portion of memory] so that it can be recalled quickly when its corresponding application is started; the memory must later be searched for an appropriate temporary process when its corresponding application is started; the entire area of memory that contains both the “management object program” [the list of applications as well as the applications themselves] as well as the “selection process” [the process that determines which temporary process to bring to the foreground] is equivalent to the claimed “management area”).
Feng does not expressly disclose the management object program cannot be activated simultaneously with another management object program.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., process control techniques), Jokinen teaches the management object program cannot be activated simultaneously with another management object program (paragraph 0111; i.e., in an exclusive execution mode, only a single task [“management object program”] can execute at a time).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Jokinen’s teachings of process control techniques with the teachings of Feng, for the purpose of ensuring that high priority management object programs can execute without being interrupted or slowed down by other management object programs.
Regarding Claim 2, Feng discloses wherein the selection process further acquires a part of the management area in dynamic memory securing processing in the management object program (page 9, second paragraph; i.e., it is “dynamic” in that the processes are stored and removed from the memory as needed).
Regarding Claim 4, Feng discloses wherein the management program recovers the management area from the selection process that is running the management object program, on a basis of a command to terminate the management object program, and then causes the OS to terminate the selection process (page 9, last two paragraphs; i.e., the application may be deleted [“terminated”] from memory).
Regarding Claim 5, Feng discloses wherein the central processing unit has a plurality of cores (page 8, second full paragraph; i.e., the processor 110 may comprise one or more processing units), and the execution of the management object program and the processing of generating the temporary process by the background program are executed in different cores (page 9, second paragraph; i.e., execution of the applications can occur simultaneously with generation of the processes).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a method for preparing processes in advance of utilization of particular programs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “Feng does not teach ‘secures a management area which is an area in the memory,’ ‘stores the management object program in the management area,’ and ‘the selection process further acquires a part of the management area,’ as recited by claim 1 as amended.” Response, page 4. The examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, Feng does in fact disclose the argued features. As explained in the above rejection, Feng discloses the application program list is stored in memory (equivalent to the claimed “management area” in the memory). Feng, page 9, first paragraph. Placing the application program list in a particular area of memory is equivalent to the claimed securing step. This is because the word “secure” means “to put beyond hazard of losing” (see attached dictionary definition). The background program in Fend at least temporarily secures the location in memory in order to store the application program list (i.e., it puts it beyond hazard of losing). Further, Feng discloses applications (the claimed “management object program”) are stored in a list; this storage is equivalent to the claimed “management area”. Id. at page 8, last paragraph. Finally, Feng discloses the selection process selects one of the temporary processes 1, 2, or 3 and loads it into the memory so that it can be recalled quickly when its corresponding application is started. Id. at page 9, second-fourth paragraphs. The memory must later be searched for an appropriate temporary process when its corresponding application is started. The entire area of memory that contains both the “management object program” (the list of applications as well as the applications themselves) as well as the “selection process” (the process that determines which temporary process to bring to the foreground) is equivalent to the claimed “management area”. Therefore, it can be seen that Feng does in fact disclose the argued limitations.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “[t]he Action has provided no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references to achieve OS-independent memory management through a secured management area in which the management object program is stored and from which the selection process acquires memory.” Response, page 6. However, the argued claim does not mention OS-independent memory management. Further, it is unclear how the claimed “management area” is different from an ordinary portion of memory that contains the “management object program” and “selection process”. To the contrary, the examiner had interpreted the entire area of memory that contains both the “management object program” (the list of applications as well as the applications themselves) as well as the “selection process” (the process that determines which temporary process to bring to the foreground) is equivalent to the claimed “management area”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “[t]he Action has not established that combining Jokinen's exclusive execution mode (designed for data packet processing ordering scopes) with Feng's mobile application pre-launch method would predictably yield the claimed integrated memory management scheme where the background program secures a management area, stores the management object program in that area, and the selection process acquires part of that same area.” Response, page 6. The examiner disagrees. The “predictable result” would simply be that applications operating in the exclusive execution mode as taught by Jokinen would replace the applications described in Feng. This would result in each application running on the mobile device in Feng exclusively, without any other applications running at the same time. As stated in the previous Office action, this would ensure that high priority management object programs can execute without being interrupted or slowed down by other management object programs.
Therefore, the claims stand as previously rejected.
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 FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights