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 Action
On 07/11/2023, Application 18/350,384 is filed with claims 1-20.
That is Non-Final Action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
determine a first score based on at least one of the identified delay event or the filtered parameter, determine a state level based on the determined first score, generate a hint corresponding to the state level, and control a resource of the electronic device based on the generated hint.
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 (An electronic device), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
herein the memory stores instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: identify a delay event based on an occurrence of a delay situation in the electronic device, filter a parameter representing a state of the electronic device…
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. Claim 2 also recites the step of:
determine the first score for a set unit of time based on a number of events generated during the set unit of time.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or 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 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
wherein the parameter includes at least one of the delay event, an operating state of a liquid crystal display (LCD) included in or operatively connected to the electronic device, a resource limitation state, or pressure stall info (PSI).
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 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, 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. Claim 4 also recites the step of:
ignore the identified delay event in response to an off state of a liquid crystal display (LCD) included in or operatively connected to the electronic device.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein the delay situation includes at least one of the delay event, a main looper delay of a system included in or operatively connected to the electronic device, a service lock contention, or an input framework delay.
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 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, 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. Claim 6 also recites the step of:
determine whether the parameter exceeds a threshold value, and filter the parameter determining the first score in response to the parameter exceeding the threshold value.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 7 also recites the step of:
determine a second score based on the identified delay event, determine a third score based on at least one of filtered parameters, and determine the first score by calculating the second score and the third score.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 7. Claim 8 also recites the step of:
wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: perform a calculation by giving a weight of at least one of the second score or the third score.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8, 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 9 also recites the step of:
generate the hint in response to a difference between the determined state level and a current state level.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 10 also recites the step of:
determine whether a level difference between the determined state level and a current state level is greater than or equal to a specified level, and generate the hint in response to that the level difference is equal to or greater than the specified level.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the device) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 does not recite the additional element that amount to significant extra-solution activity of data outputting, or provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 11-20 are directed to method comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the device of claims 1-10 are configured to perform. Claims 11-20 recite the same limitations as claims 11-10, respectively; therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-10. See above.
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 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesare US Publication 2008/0307245 in view of Chu US Publication 2008/0074375.
18/350,384
Cesare US Publication 2008/0307245 in view of Chu US Publication 2008/0074375
Claim 1
An electronic device comprising:
a communication circuit;
a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to:
Cesare Fig. 2 p0036-p0042;
identify a delay event based on an occurrence of a delay situation in the electronic device,
Chu teaches identify voltage delay p0011-p0040;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include
filter a parameter representing a state of the electronic device, determine a first score based on at least one of the identified delay event or the filtered parameter,
Cesare parameter p0011-p0012; and performance level p0038-p0046; p0057-p0062;
determine a state level based on the determined first score, generate a hint corresponding to the state level, and control a resource of the electronic device based on the generated hint.
Cesare p0065-p0067.
Claim 2
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
determine the first score for a set unit of time based on a number of events generated during the set unit of time.
Cesare teaches performance level determine by refresh rate, see Fig. 3-5 p0059-p0061;
Cesare p0065-p0067.
Chu teaches the clock generator 150 generates a clock having a predetermined period; p0046.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include
Claim 3
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the parameter includes at least one of the delay event, an operating state of a liquid crystal display (LCD) included in or operatively connected to the electronic device, a resource limitation state, or pressure stall info (PSI).
Cesare teaches performance level determine by refresh rate, see Fig. 3-5 p0059-p0061;
Cesare p0065-p0067.
Chu teaches identify voltage delay p0011-p0040;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include
Claim 4
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: ignore the identified delay event in response to an off state of a liquid crystal display (LCD) included in or operatively connected to the electronic device.
Chu teaches during shut-down sign control unit is cut off by the sequence controller; p0045-p0050;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include
Claim 5
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the delay situation includes at least one of the delay event, a main looper delay of a system included in or operatively connected to the electronic device, a service lock contention, or an input framework delay.
Cesare see Fig. 3-5 p0059-p0061;
Cesare p0065-p0067.
Chu p0011-p0040;
Claim 6
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine whether the parameter exceeds a threshold value, and filter the parameter determining the first score in response to the parameter exceeding the threshold value.
Chu teaches a threshold voltage; see p0010-p0011.
Claim 9
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: generate the hint in response to a difference between the determined state level and a current state level.
Cesare teaches at least one component driver may be notified about a change in the system performance state before adjusting of the performance level, after adjusting of the performance level, or both. In one embodiment, actual performances for the components are determined based on current states of the components of the system and the required system performance states for the components. In one embodiment, the current system performance state is determined using the actual performances for the components. In one embodiment, the system performance state is determined relative to a maximum system performance state. See Cesare p0011
Claim 10
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a level difference between the determined state level and a current state level is greater than or equal to a specified level, and generate the hint in response to that the level difference is equal to or greater than the specified level.
See Cesare p0011-p0057;
As per claims 11-16, 19 and 20, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1-6, 9 and 10. See rejection above.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesare US Publication 2008/0307245 in view of Chu US Publication 2008/0074375 and Maurer US Publication 2019/0018723.
18/350,384
Cesare US Publication 2008/0307245 in view of Chu US Publication 2008/0074375 and Maurer US Publication 2019/0018723
Claim 7
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
determine a second score based on the identified delay event, determine a third score based on at least one of filtered parameters, and determine the first score by calculating the second score and the third score.
Cesare Fig. 2 p0038-p0046; p0057-p0062; p0036-p0042;
Chu teaches identify voltage delay p0011-p0040;
Maurer teaches aggregating metric scores of multiple metrics. (see Maurer p0026-p0050)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include
Claim 8
The electronic device of claim 7, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: perform a calculation by giving a weight of at least one of the second score or the third score.
Cesare Fig. 2 p0038-p0046; p0057-p0062; p0036-p0042;
Chu teaches identify voltage delay p0011-p0040;
Maurer teaches aggregating metric scores of multiple metrics. (see Maurer p0026-p0050)
As per claims 17 and 18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 7 and 8. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Here is a list of references related to Device Management:
Allen US Publication 20190209806: System, Methods and Articles for Enhancing Wellness Associated with Habitable Environments.
Imahara et al US Publication 20090249002: Information Collection apparatus method and Program.
Tsai US Publication 20130176348: Liquid Crystal Display and method for operating the same.
Inquiry
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