DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 23, 2026 has been reviewed.
Claims 16-21 were withdrawn by election/restriction on September 16, 2024.
Claim 14 was cancelled in the previous amendment.
Claims 22-27 was added in the previous amendment.
Claims 10 and 27 are amended in the amendment.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 22-27 have been examined.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, at line 1, “The apparatus of claim 10, claim 14,” should be changed to “The apparatus of claim 10,”.
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.
Claims 10-11, 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0111626 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0126593 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu, and further in view of Dice et al. (US 2004/0025160 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dice.
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches An apparatus (operations that are performed by the main controller, para. 0045) comprising:
at least one memory (main controller [including memory], para. 0045); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (main controller [including memory and processor], para. 0045) and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive user interaction to invoke at least one computing device (the manual mode is a mode in which when a user selects any one of level 1 to level n (n is an integer of 2 or more), the system is operated in accordance with the selected mode, and the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, para. 0046); present, in response to the user interaction, a user experience on the at least one computing device according to an active operation mode (the auto mode is a mode in which when the manual mode or the schedule mode is not selected, para. 0046), the active operation mode selected from:
a first mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046);
a second mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046);
operate the at least one computing device according to the user experience and based at least in part on the active operation mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046); and
operate the at least one computing device in a schedule mode that comprises a schedule for switching the active operation mode between the first mode and the second mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046),
Lee does not explicitly teach
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context;
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context;
operate the at least one computing device according to the user experience and based at least in part on a profile associated with the active operation mode; and
However, Wu teaches
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087);
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104);
operate the at least one computing device according to the user experience and based at least in part on a profile associated with the active operation mode (the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104); and
switching the active operation mode between the standalone mode and the user mode (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the apparatus of Lee in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Lee in view of Wu does not teach
wherein the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode, and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode.
However, Dice teaches
wherein the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode (creating an execution context for the thread T1 and directing the scheduler 265 to allocate a time slot for thread T1 and schedule thread T1 to run, para. 0037; create thread T2, creating a separate execution context for thread T2 and directing the scheduler 265 to assign a time slot to thread T2 and schedule thread T2 for execution, para. 0038; the scheduler then executes a (again, unmodified) retry instruction to switch the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resume execution of thread T2 at the entry point of thread T2's signal handler, para. 0051; restoring any saved context associated with the process, assigning it a time slot, switching from kernel mode to user mode, and granting control of the processor to the selected process; the operation of saving one software task's context and replacing it with another's is known as a context switch, para. 0010; switching the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resumes execution of a thread, para. 0020), and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode (Time slots 560a and 560b are two of the slots allocated to thread T1, while time slots 580a and 580b are two of the time slots allocated to thread T2, para. 0039; fig. 5; threads T1 and T2 register a user-mode, para. 0040 and The operating system executes in slots 570a, 570b, and 570c for scheduling and other purposes, para. 0039; fig. 5; when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009; switching the context from user mode back to kernel mode, para. 0020) in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dice to the apparatus of Lee in view of Wu in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
With respect to claim 11, Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice teaches The apparatus of claim 10 as described above,
Further, Wu teaches wherein the active operation mode comprises the standalone mode, the standalone mode is associated with multiple system profiles, and a system profile for operation in the standalone mode is selected from the multiple system profiles based on one or more of a time parameter or an identity of a user that is interacting with the at least one computing device (the CPU in the kernel mode sets an interrupt priority group for the interrupt controller, where the interrupt priority group includes a first interrupt priority group and a second interrupt priority group, the first interrupt priority group includes a kernel-mode interrupt request, the second interrupt priority group includes the interrupt request whose priority is the same as that of the user-mode interrupt request or the interrupt request whose priority is lower than that of the user-mode interrupt request, and a priority of the first interrupt priority group is higher than that of the second interrupt priority group; and the CPU in the kernel mode sets a preemption operation for the interrupt controller, where the preemption operation includes that the first interrupt priority group preempts the second interrupt priority group, para. 0013; the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the apparatus of Lee in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
With respect to claim 13, Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice teaches The apparatus of claim 10 as described above,
Further, Wu teaches wherein the standalone mode is associated with a first set of web browser behaviors, the user mode is associated with a second set of web browser behaviors, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to apply one of the first set of web browser behaviors or the second set of web browser behaviors to operation of the at least one computing device based on which of the standalone mode or the user mode is the active operation mode (the CPU in the kernel mode sets an interrupt priority group for the interrupt controller, where the interrupt priority group includes a first interrupt priority group and a second interrupt priority group, the first interrupt priority group includes a kernel-mode interrupt request, the second interrupt priority group includes the interrupt request whose priority is the same as that of the user-mode interrupt request or the interrupt request whose priority is lower than that of the user-mode interrupt request, and a priority of the first interrupt priority group is higher than that of the second interrupt priority group; and the CPU in the kernel mode sets a preemption operation for the interrupt controller, where the preemption operation includes that the first interrupt priority group preempts the second interrupt priority group, para. 0013; the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the apparatus of Lee in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
With respect to claim 27, Lee teaches A method, comprising:
receiving user interaction to invoke at least one computing device (the manual mode is a mode in which when a user selects any one of level 1 to level n (n is an integer of 2 or more), the system is operated in accordance with the selected mode, and the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, para. 0046);
presenting, in response to the user interaction, a user experience on the at least one computing device according to an active operation mode (the auto mode is a mode in which when the manual mode or the schedule mode is not selected, para. 0046), the active operation mode selected from:
a first mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046); and
a (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046);
operating the at least one computing device according to the user experience and based at least in part on the active operation mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046); and
operating the at least one computing device in a schedule mode that comprises a schedule for switching the active operation mode between the first mode and the second mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046),
Lee does not explicitly teach
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context;
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context;
operate the at least one computing device according to the user experience and based at least in part on a profile associated with the active operation mode; and
switching the active operation mode between the standalone mode and the user mode.
However, Wu teaches
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087);
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104);
operate the at least one computing device according to the user experience and based at least in part on a profile associated with the active operation mode (the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104); and
switching the active operation mode between the standalone mode and the user mode (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104),
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the method of Lee in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Lee in view of Wu does not explicitly teach
wherein the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode, and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode.
However, Dice teaches
wherein the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode (creating an execution context for the thread T1 and directing the scheduler 265 to allocate a time slot for thread T1 and schedule thread T1 to run, para. 0037; create thread T2, creating a separate execution context for thread T2 and directing the scheduler 265 to assign a time slot to thread T2 and schedule thread T2 for execution, para. 0038; the scheduler then executes a (again, unmodified) retry instruction to switch the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resume execution of thread T2 at the entry point of thread T2's signal handler, para. 0051; restoring any saved context associated with the process, assigning it a time slot, switching from kernel mode to user mode, and granting control of the processor to the selected process; the operation of saving one software task's context and replacing it with another's is known as a context switch, para. 0010; switching the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resumes execution of a thread, para. 0020), and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode (Time slots 560a and 560b are two of the slots allocated to thread T1, while time slots 580a and 580b are two of the time slots allocated to thread T2, para. 0039; fig. 5; threads T1 and T2 register a user-mode, para. 0040 and The operating system executes in slots 570a, 570b, and 570c for scheduling and other purposes, para. 0039; fig. 5; when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009; switching the context from user mode back to kernel mode, para. 0020) in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dice to the method of Lee in view of Wu in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Claims 1, 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0111626 A1) in view of Dice et al. (US 2004/0025160 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim et al. (US 2018/0060250 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hildesheim.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches An apparatus (operations that are performed by the main controller, para. 0045), comprising:
at least one memory (main controller [including memory], para. 0045); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (main controller [including memory and processor], para. 0045) and configured to cause the apparatus to:
configure at least one computing device to operate in an operation mode (the auto mode is a mode in which when the manual mode or the schedule mode is not selected, para. 0046), the operation mode selected from:
a first mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046);
a second mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046); and
a schedule mode in which the at least one computing device is operable to switch between different operation modes according to a specified schedule (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046),
Lee does not explicitly teach
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context;
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context; and
the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode, and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode;
However, Dice teaches
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context (when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009);
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context (restoring any saved context associated with the process, assigning it a time slot, switching from kernel mode to user mode, and granting control of the processor to the selected process; the operation of saving one software task's context and replacing it with another's is known as a context switch, para. 0010); and
the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode (creating an execution context for the thread T1 and directing the scheduler 265 to allocate a time slot for thread T1 and schedule thread T1 to run, para. 0037; create thread T2, creating a separate execution context for thread T2 and directing the scheduler 265 to assign a time slot to thread T2 and schedule thread T2 for execution, para. 0038; the scheduler then executes a (again, unmodified) retry instruction to switch the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resume execution of thread T2 at the entry point of thread T2's signal handler, para. 0051; also see para. 0010; switching the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resumes execution of a thread, para. 0020), and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode (Time slots 560a and 560b are two of the slots allocated to thread T1, while time slots 580a and 580b are two of the time slots allocated to thread T2, para. 0039; fig. 5; threads T1 and T2 register a user-mode, para. 0040 and The operating system executes in slots 570a, 570b, and 570c for scheduling and other purposes, para. 0039; fig. 5; when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009; switching the context from user mode back to kernel mode, para. 0020) in order to schedule to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007);
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dice to the apparatus of Lee in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Lee in view of Dice does not explicitly teach
configure permissions of the at least one computing device based at least in part on the configured operation mode; and
cause operation of the at least one computing device according to the configured operation mode and the configured permissions.
However, Hildesheim teaches
configure permissions of the at least one computing device based at least in part on the configured operation mode (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032); and
cause operation of the at least one computing device according to the configured operation mode and the configured permissions (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032) in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hildeshiem to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
With respect to claim 7, Lee teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the operation mode comprises the schedule mode, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to configure a schedule of the at least one computing device to specify a schedule for automatically switching between operation in the first mode and operation in the second mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046).
Further, Dice teaches specify operation of the standalone mode (when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009) and operation of the user mode (restoring any saved context associated with the process, assigning it a time slot, switching from kernel mode to user mode, and granting control of the processor to the selected process; the operation of saving one software task's context and replacing it with another's is known as a context switch, para. 0010) in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dice to the apparatus of Lee in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
With respect to claim 22, Lee teaches A method, comprising:
configuring at least one computing device to operate in an operation mode (the auto mode is a mode in which when the manual mode or the schedule mode is not selected, para. 0046), the operation mode selected from:
a first mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046);
a second mode (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes may be included, para. 0046); and
a schedule mode in which the at least one computing device is operable to switch between different operation modes according to a specified schedule (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046),
Lee does not explicitly teach
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context;
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context; and
the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode, and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode;
However, Dice teaches
a standalone mode in which the at least one computing device is operable independent of a user-specific context (when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009);
a user mode in which the at least one computing device is operable within a user-specific context (restoring any saved context associated with the process, assigning it a time slot, switching from kernel mode to user mode, and granting control of the processor to the selected process; the operation of saving one software task's context and replacing it with another's is known as a context switch, para. 0010); and
the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode (creating an execution context for the thread T1 and directing the scheduler 265 to allocate a time slot for thread T1 and schedule thread T1 to run, para. 0037; create thread T2, creating a separate execution context for thread T2 and directing the scheduler 265 to assign a time slot to thread T2 and schedule thread T2 for execution, para. 0038; the scheduler then executes a (again, unmodified) retry instruction to switch the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resume execution of thread T2 at the entry point of thread T2's signal handler, para. 0051; also see para. 0010; switching the execution context from kernel mode to user mode and resumes execution of a thread, para. 0020), and one or more timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the user mode to the standalone mode (Time slots 560a and 560b are two of the slots allocated to thread T1, while time slots 580a and 580b are two of the time slots allocated to thread T2, para. 0039; fig. 5; threads T1 and T2 register a user-mode, para. 0040 and The operating system executes in slots 570a, 570b, and 570c for scheduling and other purposes, para. 0039; fig. 5; when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009; switching the context from user mode back to kernel mode, para. 0020) in order to schedule to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007);
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dice to the method of Lee in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Lee in view of Dice does not explicitly teach
configure permissions of the at least one computing device based at least in part on the configured operation mode; and
cause operation of the at least one computing device according to the configured operation mode and the configured permissions.
However, Hildesheim teaches
configure permissions of the at least one computing device based at least in part on the configured operation mode (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032); and
cause operation of the at least one computing device according to the configured operation mode and the configured permissions (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032) in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hildeshiem to the method of Lee in view of Dice in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Claims 2-6 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0111626 A1), in view of Dice et al. (US 2004/0025160 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dice, further in view of Hildesheim et al. (US 2018/0060250 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0126593 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
With respect to claim 2, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The apparatus of claim 1 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
communicate a profile request requesting a device profile for the at least one computing device; and
receive the device profile, wherein the device profile identifies the operation mode for configuring the at least one computing device.
However, Wu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
communicate a profile request requesting a device profile for the at least one computing device (the CPU in the kernel mode sets an interrupt priority group for the interrupt controller, where the interrupt priority group includes a first interrupt priority group and a second interrupt priority group, the first interrupt priority group includes a kernel-mode interrupt request, the second interrupt priority group includes the interrupt request whose priority is the same as that of the user-mode interrupt request or the interrupt request whose priority is lower than that of the user-mode interrupt request, and a priority of the first interrupt priority group is higher than that of the second interrupt priority group; and the CPU in the kernel mode sets a preemption operation for the interrupt controller, where the preemption operation includes that the first interrupt priority group preempts the second interrupt priority group, para. 0013); and
receive the device profile, wherein the device profile identifies the operation mode for configuring the at least one computing device (the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the device profile comprises an operation schedule that specifies that the at least one computing device is to switch from the operation mode to a different operation mode at a scheduled time (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes be included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046).
With respect to claim 4, Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu teaches The apparatus of claim 2 as described above,
Further, Hildesheim teaches wherein the device profile comprises device permissions that specify allowed device access based on the operation mode (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032) in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hildeshiem to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
With respect to claim 5, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The apparatus of claim 1 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach wherein the operation mode comprises the standalone mode, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to select a system profile for operation of the at least one computing device within the standalone mode.
However, Wu teaches wherein the operation mode comprises the standalone mode, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to select a system profile for operation of the at least one computing device within the standalone mode (the central processing unit CPU in a kernel mode performs anonymization processing on a kernel address of a first interrupt exception handler to obtain a second interrupt exception handler, para. 0006; initialization module in the kernel mode is further configured to: set an interrupt priority group for the interrupt controller, where the interrupt priority group includes a first interrupt priority group and a second interrupt priority group, para. 0027) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
With respect to claim 6, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The apparatus of claim 1 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach wherein the operation mode comprises the user mode, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to configure a set of user profiles that are permitted to access functionality of the at least one computing device within the user mode.
However, Wu teaches wherein the operation mode comprises the user mode, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to configure a set of user profiles that are permitted to access functionality of the at least one computing device within the user mode (enabling the CPU in the user mode to execute the user-mode interrupt handler, next the CPU needs to switch to the user mode from the kernel mode, para. 0083; the CPU switches to the user mode from the kernel mode through context switch, para. 0087; the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
With respect to claim 23, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The method of claim 22 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach further comprising:
communicating a profile request requesting a device profile for the at least one computing device; and
receiving the device profile, wherein the device profile identifies the operation mode for configuring the at least one computing device.
However, Wu teaches further comprising:
communicating a profile request requesting a device profile for the at least one computing device (the CPU in the kernel mode sets an interrupt priority group for the interrupt controller, where the interrupt priority group includes a first interrupt priority group and a second interrupt priority group, the first interrupt priority group includes a kernel-mode interrupt request, the second interrupt priority group includes the interrupt request whose priority is the same as that of the user-mode interrupt request or the interrupt request whose priority is lower than that of the user-mode interrupt request, and a priority of the first interrupt priority group is higher than that of the second interrupt priority group; and the CPU in the kernel mode sets a preemption operation for the interrupt controller, where the preemption operation includes that the first interrupt priority group preempts the second interrupt priority group, para. 0013); and
receiving the device profile, wherein the device profile identifies the operation mode for configuring the at least one computing device (the CPU sets the priority group for the interrupt controller in an initialization process after startup, so that an operation of disabling an interrupt and re-enabling an interrupt is no longer needed in a processing process of the user-mode interrupt request, para. 0014) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the method of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104)
With respect to claim 24, Lee teaches The method of claim 23, wherein the device profile comprises an operation schedule that specifies that the at least one computing device is to switch from the operation mode to a different operation mode at a scheduled time (a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes be included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels, para. 0046).
With respect to claim 25, Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu teaches The method of claim 23 as described above,
Further, Hildesheim teaches wherein the device profile comprises device permissions that specify allowed device access based on the operation mode (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032) in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hildeshiem to the method of Lee in view of Dice in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
With respect to claim 26, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The method of claim 22 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach wherein the operation mode comprises the standalone mode, and wherein the method further comprises selecting a system profile for operation of the at least one computing device within the standalone mode.
However, Wu teaches wherein the operation mode comprises the standalone mode, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to select a system profile for operation of the at least one computing device within the standalone mode (the central processing unit CPU in a kernel mode performs anonymization processing on a kernel address of a first interrupt exception handler to obtain a second interrupt exception handler, para. 0006; initialization module in the kernel mode is further configured to: set an interrupt priority group for the interrupt controller, where the interrupt priority group includes a first interrupt priority group and a second interrupt priority group, para. 0027) in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu to the method of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to improve efficiency of processing a user-mode interrupt request as taught by Wu (para. 0104).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0111626 A1) in view of Dice et al. (US 2004/0025160 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim et al. (US 2018/0060250 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0154501 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cheng.
With respect to claim 8, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The apparatus of claim 7 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
configure the schedule of the at least one computing device to specify a schedule for automatically switching between operation in the user mode and operation in the standalone mode; and
configure a switching behavior that specifies a type of notification to be output when switching between operation in the user mode and operation in the standalone mode, and an action to be performed when a user profile is authenticated with the at least one computing device when a scheduled switch between the user mode and the standalone mode occurs.
However, Cheng teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
configure the schedule of the at least one computing device to specify a schedule for automatically switching between operation in the user mode and operation in the standalone mode (the UE 120 provided with a resume ID when moving to the peer UE scheduling mode, and include the resume ID in the signaling used when switching back to a base station scheduling mode, para. 0070); and
configure a switching behavior that specifies a type of notification to be output when switching between operation in the user mode and operation in the standalone mode (transmitting, by the first UE, a request message to a base station to indicate the first UE is switching from a base station scheduling mode to a peer UE scheduling mode and receiving, by the first UE, an acknowledgment message from the base station indicating a state change to allow the peer UE scheduling mode, para. 0005), and an action to be performed when a user profile is authenticated with the at least one computing device when a scheduled switch between the user mode and the standalone mode occurs (the inactive request message includes an identifier for the peer UE (e.g., the RSU) that provide the scheduling service for UE-1. In the authorization process, e.g., step 1 of FIG. 9, UE-1 learn the peer UE's (e.g., the RSUs) identifier that UE-1 will use in the inactive request message; allowing the RAN node (e.g., a base station), to authorize the change of operation modes of the UE when receiving the inactive request message and further determining the preferred operation, e.g., to change the resources allocation to the peer UE, para. 0112) in order to indicate a state change to allow the UE scheduling mode as taught by Cheng (para. 0006).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Cheng to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to indicate a state change to allow the UE scheduling mode as taught by Cheng (para. 0006).
With respect to claim 9, Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim teaches The apparatus of claim 1 as described above,
Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to configure the at least one computing device to specify whether user switching between the standalone mode and the user mode is permitted.
However, Cheng teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to configure the at least one computing device to specify whether user switching between the standalone mode and the user mode is permitted (the inactive request message includes an identifier for the peer UE (e.g., the RSU) that provide the scheduling service for UE-1. In the authorization process, e.g., step 1 of FIG. 9, UE-1 learn the peer UE's (e.g., the RSUs) identifier that UE-1 will use in the inactive request message; allowing the RAN node (e.g., a base station), to authorize the change of operation modes of the UE when receiving the inactive request message and further determining the preferred operation, e.g., to change the resources allocation to the peer UE, para. 0112) in order to indicate a state change to allow the UE scheduling mode as taught by Cheng (para. 0006).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, further in view of Hildesheim, and furthermore in view of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Cheng to the apparatus of Lee in view of Dice, and further in view of Hildesheim in order to indicate a state change to allow the UE scheduling mode as taught by Cheng (para. 0006).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0111626 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0126593 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu, further in view of Dice et al. (US 2004/0025160 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dice, and furthermore in view of Hildesheim et al. (US 2018/0060250 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hildesheim.
With respect to claim 12, Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice teaches The apparatus of claim 10 as described above,
Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice does not explicitly teach wherein the standalone mode is associated with a first set of permissions, the user mode is associated with a second set of permissions, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to apply one of the first set of permissions or the second set of permissions to operation of the at least one computing device based on which of the standalone mode or the user mode is the active operation mode.
However, Hildesheim teaches wherein the standalone mode is associated with a first set of permissions, the user mode is associated with a second set of permissions, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to apply one of the first set of permissions or the second set of permissions to operation of the at least one computing device based on which of the standalone mode or the user mode is the active operation mode (an application program associated with a privilege level that determines its access mode (e.g., as a user or as a supervisor) to memory, a user application have a low privilege of a user-mode, and a system application (such as the kernel) have a high privilege of a supervisor-mode, para. 0018; allowing for the operating system to set access permissions for the user mode and the supervisor mode associated with different access permissions for the supervisor mode and the user mode, para. 0032) in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, further in view of Dice, and furthermore in view of Hildesheim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hildeshiem to the apparatus of Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice in order to allow the operating system to set different access permissions with different modes as taught by Hildesheim (para. 0032).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0111626 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0126593 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu, further in view of Dice et al. (US 2004/0025160 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dice, and furthermore in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0154501 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cheng.
With respect to claim 15, Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice teaches The apparatus of claim 10 as described above, claim 14
Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice does not explicitly teach wherein the active operation mode comprises the user mode, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
determine that the schedule specifies that the active operation mode is to be switched from the user mode to the standalone mode;
determine that a user profile is currently authenticated on the at least one computing device in the user mode; and
output a notification that indicates that a switch from the user mode to the standalone mode is scheduled, and that provides for one or more available user-selected actions to be performed before switching to the standalone mode.
However, Cheng teaches wherein the active operation mode comprises the user mode, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
determine that the schedule specifies that the active operation mode is to be switched from the user mode to the standalone mode (the UE 120 e provided with a resume ID when moving to the peer UE scheduling mode, and include the resume ID in the signaling used when switching back to a base station scheduling mode, para. 0070);
determine that a user profile is currently authenticated on the at least one computing device in the user mode (the inactive request message includes an identifier for the peer UE (e.g., the RSU) that provide the scheduling service for UE-1. In the authorization process, e.g., step 1 of FIG. 9, UE-1 learn the peer UE's (e.g., the RSUs) identifier that UE-1 will use in the inactive request message; allowing the RAN node (e.g., a base station), to authorize the change of operation modes of the UE when receiving the inactive request message and further determining the preferred operation, e.g., to change the resources allocation to the peer UE, para. 0112); and
output a notification that indicates that a switch from the user mode to the standalone mode is scheduled, and that provides for one or more available user-selected actions to be performed before switching to the standalone mode (transmitting, by the first UE, a request message to a base station to indicate the first UE is switching from a base station scheduling mode to a peer UE scheduling mode and receiving, by the first UE, an acknowledgment message from the base station indicating a state change to allow the peer UE scheduling mode, para. 0005) in order to indicate a state change to allow the UE scheduling mode as taught by Cheng (para. 0006).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Wu, further in view of Dice, and furthermore in view of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Cheng to the apparatus of Lee in view of Wu, and further in view of Dice in order to indicate a state change to allow the UE scheduling mode as taught by Cheng (para. 0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s main argument is that “Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Lee and Dice with Hildesheim as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the independent claims 1 and 22 along with the respective dependent claim 7. The proposed combination therefore fails to render these claims prima facie obvious.” (Argument 1, REMARKS, page 3).
In response to applicant’s argument (Argument 1) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, reference Lee teaches a user selects any one mode from three modes, the three modes are a manual mode, an auto mode, and a schedule mode, and other modes included; the schedule mode is a mode in which when a level is set for each of specific time, the system is operated at each of the time in accordance with the levels (para. 0046). Lee does not explicitly teach the schedule mode comprising one or timeslots at which the at least one computing device is to switch from the standalone mode to the user mode, However, Dice teaches Time slots 560a and 560b are two of the slots allocated to thread T1, while time slots 580a and 580b are two of the time slots allocated to thread T2, para. 0039; fig. 5; threads T1 and T2 register a user-mode, para. 0040 and The operating system executes in slots 570a, 570b, and 570c for scheduling and other purposes, para. 0039; fig. 5; when the time slot ends for a running process, the processor switches to kernel mode, an interrupt is generated, and control of the processor is turned over to the operating system, para. 0009; switching the context from user mode back to kernel mode (para. 0020) in order to schedule to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Dice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dice to the apparatus of Lee in order to schedule processes to take control of the processor for their respective time slots as taught by Dice (para. 0007).
Further, dependent claims 2-9 and 23-26 are dependent to independent claims 1 and 22, respectively. Therefore, they are referred to the above response to the Argument 1.
For the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Regarding to the alternative rejection above, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-13, 15 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the alternative rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO HONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2666. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H. Hwang can be reached on (571)272-40364036. 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.
/H.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2447 April 30, 2026
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights