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, 4, 7-11, 15-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0055031), Finger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0113458), and Ma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0365892).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Tu discloses a method (and an electronic device, comprising a memory [Figure 2, item 216] and one or more processors [Figure 2, item 210] and the memory stores computer-readable instructions [the instructions described in Claims 1-13]) for controlling running of an application, implemented by an electronic device, the method comprising:
in response to running of a target application, switching, based on a running condition of the target application, a use of a sensor (paragraph 0034) used by the target application (paragraph 0024) to a target operating system (Figure 1, item 120) of the at least two operating systems, the target operating system matching the running condition (paragraphs 0035-0037; i.e., if it is determined that additional processing power is required for a particular event, task, or operation [the claimed “running condition of the target application”], the second operating system 120 can become activated); and
in the target operating system, obtaining data output by the sensor, processing the data to obtain a corresponding processing result (paragraph 0037; i.e., once the second operating system 120 is activated, it deals with the required event, task, or operation that required higher processing power including analyzing data from sensors [equivalent to “processing the data to obtain a corresponding processing result”]);
wherein the at least two operating systems comprises a first operating system and a second operating system (Figure 1, items 110 and 120), the target operating system is the first operating system (Figure 1, item 120; i.e., referred to as the “second operating system” in the reference) or the second operating system (Figure 1, item 110; i.e., referred to as the “first operating system” in the reference), power consumption of running the first operating system in the electronic device is greater than power consumption of running the second operating system in the electronic device (paragraph 0020), and an operational capability of the electronic device in the first operating system is higher than an operational capability of the electronic device in the second operating system (paragraph 0020); and
switching, based on the running condition of the target application, the control right of the sensor corresponding to the target application to the target operating system matching the running condition comprises:
in response to the running condition of the target application requiring high-precision operation, switching the control right of the sensor corresponding to the target application to the first operating system (paragraph 0026; i.e., App 6 requires higher graphics capability and processing capability [“higher precision”] than a particular threshold).
Tu does not expressly disclose the at least two operating systems simultaneously running on the electronic device, only one of the at least two operating systems having a control right of a sensor;
wherein the use of the sensor is a control right of the sensor;
transmitting the processing result to the target application; and
the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation of closing the target application running in the first operating system, turning off the sensor, and switching the control right of the sensor from the first operating system to the second operating system;
wherein while the at least two operating systems simultaneously run on the electronic device, when the running of the target application is triggered by a trigger operation, the second operating system has the control right of the sensor by default.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., multi-operating system devices), Finger discloses at least two operating systems (Figure 1, items 110 and 112) being capable of simultaneously running on the electronic device (paragraph 0032), only one of the at least two operating systems having a control right of a sensor (Figure 1, item 165, paragraph 0040; i.e., optical disk drives are known in the art to contain an optical sensor) of the electronic device at a time (paragraph 0046; i.e., by enabling only one of the operating systems to control the sensor and disabling the other OS, it is giving a "control right" of the sensor to the enabled OS);
wherein the use of the sensor is a control right of the sensor (paragraphs 0035, 0046, and 0051; i.e., once one of the operating systems is selected, it gains the control right of the sensor);
wherein while the at least two operating systems simultaneously run on the electronic device, when the running of the target application is triggered by a trigger operation (paragraph 0056 and 0086; i.e., an input [equivalent to the claimed “trigger operation”] is sent to the selected operating system to enable its drivers and take control of the sensor; the input may be, e.g., a disk ID signal sent directly from the disk drive to the selected operating system), the second operating system has the control right of the sensor by default (paragraphs 0043-0044; i.e., the DVD software stack 510, which uses Windows CE, is the default operating system when a DVD is inserted [i.e., a DVD application such as a Microsoft Xbox game is triggered]; whereas the Blu-ray software stack 512, which uses Linux, is the default operating system when a Blu-ray is inserted [i.e., a Blu-ray application such as a PlayStation 3 game is triggered]).
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 Finger’s teachings of multi-operating system devices with the teachings of Tu, for the purpose of reducing the amount of time it takes to switch between the two operating systems.
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., power reduction in a wearable device), Ma teaches transmitting the processing result to the target application (paragraph 0059; i.e., both the little operating system LOS and the big operating system BOS can transmit processing results [which can include sensor detection and calculations – see paragraph 0047] directly to an application APP without having to re-establish contact with the application when they are switched [see paragraph 0036]); and
the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation of closing the target application running in the first operating system (paragraph 0031; i.e., a trigger that causes the big operating system [BOS - the claimed “first operating system”] to transition to one of the low power modes, which includes closing certain applications and switching to the little operating system [LOS - the claimed “second operating system”]), turning off the sensor (paragraphs 0031 and 0034; i.e., in the deep hibernation state, the entire device is shut down, which would including turning off any sensors), and switching the control right of the sensor from the first operating system to the second operating system (paragraph 0031; i.e., once the little operating system has taken over control of the watch in the deep hibernation state, it controls any sensors; it may cause the device to wake up certain times to detect sensor readings).
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 Ma’s teachings of power reduction in a wearable device with the teachings of Tu, for the purpose of saving time by allowing each operating system to transmit sensor data to the application without having to reload the application each time the operating systems are switched.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Tu discloses wherein the switching, based on the running condition of the target application, the control right of the sensor corresponding to the target application to the target operating system matching the running condition further comprises in response to the running condition of the target application requiring an algorithm precision higher than a precision threshold, switching the control right of the sensor corresponding to the target application to the first operating system; and in response to the running condition of the target application requiring an algorithm precision lower than or equal to the precision threshold, switching the control right of the sensor corresponding to the target application to the second operating system (paragraphs 0035-0037; i.e., if it is determined that additional processing power is required for a particular event, task, or operation [the claimed “running condition of the target application”], the second operating system 120 can become activated while the first operating system 110 would be deactivated; this would include taking over control of the sensors in the device).
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Ma teaches wherein obtaining the data output by the sensor in the target operating system comprises: obtaining, in the first operating system, data collected at a first sampling rate and output by the sensor; or obtaining, in the second operating system, data collected at a second sampling rate and output by the sensor, wherein the second sampling rate is lower than the first sampling rate (paragraph 0028; i.e., the LOS, the sensor detection can occur at lower work frequencies [sampling rates] than when the device is operating with the BOS).
Regarding Claim 7, Tu discloses determining, based on the running condition of the target application, the target operating system from the at least two operating systems (paragraphs 0026-0027; i.e., only one of the operating systems is active at a given time).
Regarding Claim 8, Tu discloses wherein the first operating system is an Android operating system or a Linux operating system (paragraph 0028; i.e., second operating system 120 is referred to as a “rich application system”; the examiner takes Official Notice that both the Android and Linux operating systems were well known in the art to be used in the type of system used in the reference and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used them for the purpose of having an operating system that supports many apps as well as having an easy-to-use graphical interface), and the second operating system is a real time operating system (paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 9, Tu discloses wherein the running condition comprises a running condition related to power consumption and a running condition related to performance (paragraph 0022), the running condition related to power consumption is a low-power-consumption running condition requiring power consumption lower than a power consumption threshold, and the running condition related to performance is a high-precision algorithm running condition requiring an algorithm precision higher than a precision threshold (paragraph 0026; i.e., switching between the two operating systems 110 and 120 changes both the power consumption as well as the performance of the phone 130).
Regarding Claims 10 and 16, Tu discloses wherein the electronic device has a switch in hardware, and switching the control right of the sensor corresponding to the target application to the target operating system comprises: switching, through the switch, the sensor corresponding to the target application to interface with the first operating system or the second operating system (paragraphs 0034-0037; i.e., the reference does not expressly state what type of switching for the sensors occur when the operating systems are switched; however, even if it is assumed that the reference uses a software-based switching mechanism, according to the Principle of Equivalence of Hardware and Software, anything that software can do, can also be done by hardware).
Regarding Claim 11, Tu discloses wherein when the running condition requires a processing capability of low power consumption, and there are multiple operating systems running on the electronic device, the method further comprises: comparing power consumption of the individual operating systems; ranking the operating systems in an order from highest power consumption to lowest power consumption or from the lowest power consumption to the highest power consumption (paragraph 0022; i.e., the first operating system 110 is ranked lower than the second operating system 120 in terms of processing capabilities, but is ranked higher in terms of power savings); and obtaining the target operating system, through a matching operation, based on the power consumption required by the running condition of the target application (paragraph 0026; i.e., the particular operating system 110 or 120 is selected based on the needs of the particular application).
Regarding Claim 22, Tu discloses wherein the running condition comprises a hardware running condition (Figure 2, item 206) and a software running condition (Figure 1, items 110 and 120) that are required for the target application to run (paragraph 0022; i.e., each application runs using one of the operating systems 110 or 120 as well as particular hardware components such as a CPU and GPU).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, Finger, and Ma as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0329715).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Tu, Finger, and Ma do not expressly disclose while the first operating system has the control right of the sensor, in response to detecting a request of acquiring sensor data that is initiated by the second operating system, transmitting the obtained data of the sensor to the second operating system by the first operating system.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., power reduction in a wearable device), Jeong teaches while the first operating system (Figure 6, item 610) has the control right of the sensor (Figure 2, item 250, paragraph 0038; i.e., the first OS is the host OS), in response to detecting a request of acquiring sensor data that is initiated by the second operating system (paragraphs 0040 and 0072; i.e., an application executing within the second OS requests sensor data from the second OS; this request would presumably need to be forwarded to the first OS since that is the OS that is controlling the sensor 250; at the very least, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made a request to the first OS for the sensor data for the purpose of providing security; more specifically, by making the sensor data into a request rather than a command, the first OS would be able to deny the request in the event of a security breach), transmitting the obtained data of the sensor to the second operating system by the first operating system (paragraph 0073).
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 Jeong’s teachings of power reduction in a wearable device with the teachings of Tu, Finger, and Ma, for the purpose of providing added convenience to the user. More specifically, by allowing the sensor data to be requested from a co-running operating system, the user would be able to easily access the sensor data for any applications running on the second operating system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, Finger, Ma, and Jeong as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of He (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0045582).
Regarding Claim 23, Jeong teaches wherein the obtained data of the sensor is transmitted from the first operating system to the second operating system (paragraph 0073).
Tu, Finger, Ma, and Jeong do not expressly disclose wherein the obtained data is through a dual-core communication technology (although Jeong does disclose a CPU 270; dual-core CPUs were well-known in the art).
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., communication of peripheral data between components in an electronic system), He teaches wherein the obtained data is through a dual-core communication technology (Figure 1, items 10 and 20, abstract, paragraphs 0075 and 0086; i.e., data can be communicated between the two cores 10 and 20).
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 He’s teachings of communication of peripheral data between components in an electronic system with the teachings of Tu, Finger, Ma, and Jeong, for the purpose of allowing the cores to exchange data and synchronize their actions, enabling them to work together on complex tasks efficiently by dividing the workload.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, Finger, Ma, and Jeong as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Dolph et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0193239).
Regarding Claim 24, Tu, Finger, Ma, and Jeong do not expressly disclose wherein when the running condition requires a processing capability of low power consumption and the at least two operating systems comprise three or more operating systems, the computer-readable instructions, when being executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: compare power consumption of the three or more operating systems; rank the three or more operating systems in an order from highest power consumption to lowest power consumption or from the lowest power consumption to the highest power consumption; and obtain, from the ranked three or more operating systems, the target operating system through a matching operation based on the power consumption required by the running condition of the target application.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., multi-operating system devices), Dolph teaches wherein when the running condition requires a processing capability of low power consumption and the at least two operating systems comprise three or more operating systems (Figure 1, items 106, paragraph 0019), the computer-readable instructions, when being executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: compare power consumption of the three or more operating systems; rank (paragraph 0044) the three or more operating systems in an order from highest power consumption to lowest power consumption or from the lowest power consumption to the highest power consumption; and obtain, from the ranked three or more operating systems, the target operating system through a matching operation based on the power consumption required by the running condition (i.e., the amount of battery left) of the target application (paragraphs 0022, 0028, 0031, and 0033; i.e., depending on the amount of battery left and the requirements of the application, one of the operating systems will be selected based on their respective power consumptions).
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 Dolph’s teachings of multi-operating system devices with the teachings of Tu, Finger, Ma, and Jeong, for the purpose of allowing the target application to continue running when the battery is running low.
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 switching between operating systems based on relevant conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 on 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