DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “processing unit” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1: claim limitations “a processing unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as indicated above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions.
In particular, the specification describes this processing unit in element 20 of Figure 2 and the associated descriptions. These paragraphs describe the function performed by these modules, but do not describe the structure required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although [0044] describes that, as an example, the processing unit may be a computer and a memory, this does not meet the required structure for a computer-implemented claim of a special purpose computer (see MPEP 2181).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, as noted above, claim limitation “a processing unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Further, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification describes the function of these modules, but does not provide the required structural support. Thus, in addition to being indefinite (because the scope of the claim is not clear as articulated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), the claim is similarly rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. That is, the original disclosure does not provide a written description of the structure of the limitation “a processing unit”. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2: the phrase “each schedule item” is unclear. It appears to reference one or more “schedule items”, which have not been previously recited in the claim. The claim should be amended to clarify the meaning of the schedule item and how it fits into the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 7: the meaning of the phrase “a use start timing” is unclear.
Regarding claim 13: the phrase “a next schedule of the ended schedule item” is not clear. Although worded as though the schedule item comprises multiple schedules, it appears that it may refer to the next schedule item in the schedule.
Claims 3-7 depend from claim 2 and are thus similarly indefinite for reasons stated above.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “a program”, which is interpreted to be software, per se. Software, per se, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (US 2012/0028670).
Regarding claim 1: Lim discloses an information processing apparatus (disclosed throughout; see the mobile device 11 of Figures 1-3, for example) comprising a processing unit (disclosed throughout, see the processing module 221 of Figure 2, for example) that selects one communication unit from a plurality of communication units having different communication schemes based on schedule information and time information (disclosed throughout; see Figures 4 and 5, for example, which discloses the mobile device selecting a communication unit from a plurality of communication units (one of the communication units 242, 247, 260, or 266 of Figure 2 corresponding to either network A or B); as indicated in Figure 6 and [0033], for example, the expected battery life in steps 514 and 516 of Figure 6 may be based in part on a schedule and time (the duration of the calendar item at the current time (call in progress)); the different communication units have different communication schemes as indicated in Figure 2 and [0022], for example).
Regarding claim 14: Lim discloses an information processing method executed by a computer (see the computer implemented by processing module 221 of Figure 2, for example, which executes the method), the method comprising selecting one communication unit from a plurality of communication units having different communication schemes based on schedule information and time information (disclosed throughout; see Figures 4 and 5, for example, which discloses the mobile device selecting a communication unit from a plurality of communication units (one of the communication units 242, 247, 260, or 266 of Figure 2 corresponding to either network A or B); as indicated in Figure 6 and [0033], for example, the expected battery life in steps 514 and 516 of Figure 6 may be based in part on a schedule and time (the duration of the calendar item at the current time (call in progress)); see also [0015]; the different communication units have different communication schemes as indicated in Figure 2 and [0022], for example).
Regarding claim 15: Lim discloses a program for causing a computer to (see the processing module 221 of Figure 2 and the program it executes described in at least [0020], for example) select one communication unit from a plurality of communication units having different communication schemes based on schedule information and time information (disclosed throughout; see Figures 4 and 5, for example, which discloses the mobile device selecting a communication unit from a plurality of communication units (one of the communication units 242, 247, 260, or 266 of Figure 2 corresponding to either network A or B); as indicated in Figure 6 and [0033], for example, the expected battery life in steps 514 and 516 of Figure 6 may be based in part on a schedule and time (the duration of the calendar item at the current time (call in progress)); the different communication units have different communication schemes as indicated in Figure 2 and [0022], for example).
Regarding claim 12: Lim discloses the limitation that when the communication unit being used is to be switched to another communication unit based on a selection result, the processing unit notifies a user of whether or not switching is possible before switching the communication unit (disclosed throughout; see steps 520-522, for example, which discloses that the mobile device notifies/prompts the user prior to switching).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2012/0028670) in view of Bikumala (US 10,884,484).
Regarding claim 2: Lim discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the processing unit selects the communication unit based on schedule communication information in which required communication performance for each schedule item is registered. However, consider Bikumala, for example, which discloses a similar mobile device that also uses calendar information to manage the power consumption of the device. As indicated throughout, each schedule item (event) in the calendar has an associated “profile”, which indicates the required performance of that event/schedule item. For example, consider 1:58-66, which discloses that a first event has “an associated first profile”, which is used to “configure the computing device based on the first profile to reduce a power consumption”. Further, as indicated in 2:42-51, the device may “determine, from a calendar application, a plurality of activities scheduled in a particular time period (e.g., during a day)…and determine a predicted battery life of the battery in the particular time period” based on the profile and the required communication performance (battery consumption) for that schedule item/activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lim to utilize the profiles for each calendar event/activity as suggested by Bikumala to aid in the selection of the communication unit. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the device to improve the decision making for the communication unit by including information about future events and the associated profiles that are scheduled in the calendar as suggested by Bikumala.
Regarding claim 3: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 2 as indicted above. Lim also discloses preserving information regarding current and existing calls (call history information) as indicated throughout; see [0031]-[0032]. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 3 that the processing unit determines required communication performance of an unregistered schedule item not registered in the schedule communication information based on communication information acquired during an implementation period of the unregistered schedule item, and registers the determined required communication performance in the schedule communication information in association with the unregistered schedule item. However, Bikumala discloses that for a second event that does not have an associated profile, the device will “gather hardware usage data” and use this information to “create the second profile”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lim to determine the required communication performance for an “unregistered schedule item” (an event without an associated profile) and to acquire information based on communication information during an implementation period (while the second event is being processed and the device is gathering information) and register the determined required communication performance (creating the second profile). The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the decision making of the device by storing the historical data such that it is associated with an event that may be scheduled on the calendar in the future and to utilize the measurements to properly select a communication unit for this event based on previous usage.
Regarding claim 4: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 2 as indicted above. Lim also discloses preserving information regarding current and existing calls (call history information) as indicated throughout; see [0031]-[0032]. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4 that the processing unit determines required communication performance of an unregistered schedule item not registered in the schedule communication information based on an action history of a user acquired during an implementation period of the unregistered schedule item, and registers the determined required communication performance in the schedule communication information in association with the unregistered schedule item. However, Bikumala discloses that for a second event that does not have an associated profile, the device will “gather hardware usage data” and use this information to “create the second profile”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lim to determine the required communication performance for an “unregistered schedule item” (an event without an associated profile) and to acquire information based on an action history during an implementation period (while the second event is being processed and the device is gathering information) and register the determined required communication performance (creating the second profile). The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the decision making of the device by storing the historical data such that it is associated with an event that may be scheduled on the calendar in the future and to utilize the measurements to properly select a communication unit for this event based on previous usage.
Regarding claim 7: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations that the schedule communication information includes information indicating a use start timing of the communication unit for each schedule item. Specifically, both Lim and Bikumala utilize calendar events/activities to determine the schedule communication information. These calendar events/activities clearly have start times, which are interpreted as a start timing of the communication unit. That is, the utilization of the hardware elements in the profile of Bikumala indicates that these hardware elements (including a communication unit) starts when the event/activity starts.
Regarding claim 13: Lim discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 13 that the processing unit monitors an implementation status of a schedule item included in the schedule information and, when detecting information indicating that implementation of the schedule item has ended, selects the communication unit based on a next schedule of the ended schedule item. However, Bikumala discloses a similar mobile device that also uses calendar information to manage the power consumption of the device. As indicated in 2:42-45, the calendar information includes a “plurality of activities” or events scheduled in a particular time period/day. Further, as indicated in 2:10-25, for example, the device monitors to identify when one event has ended and determines if a next event is in the calendar. In the example in 2:10-25, the second event does not have a profile and the device gathers information to create a profile. However, clearly sometimes the second event does have a profile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lim with Bikumala so that the communication unit is selected according to the second profile after the device detects the end of the first event and the occurrence of a second event after the ended first event. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the device to manage the limited battery capacity of the device through successive events on the user’s calendar as suggested by Bikumala.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2012/0028670) in view of Bikumala (US 10,884,484) in view of Vemuri et al (US 2019/0274082).
Regarding claim 5: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 2 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5 that the required communication performance includes performance related to a communication capacity. However, Vemuri discloses a UE that determines whether to switch between two communication units (such as LTE and WiFi). Vemuri further monitors various parameters to assist in making the decision on which communication unit to use. The parameters include a communication capacity (throughput, bandwidth – see [0038] and [0042], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lim, modified, to utilize one or more parameters including a communication capacity as part of the decision regarding switching communication units. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure the decision provides the user with adequate quality of service when using the device as suggested by Vemuri.
Regarding claim 6: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 2 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 6 that the required communication performance includes performance related to an allowable delay amount. However, Vemuri discloses a UE that determines whether to switch between two communication units (such as LTE and WiFi). Vemuri further monitors various parameters to assist in making the decision on which communication unit to use. The parameters include an allowable delay amount (latency, packet delay – see [0038], [0042], [0047], and [0067], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lim, modified, to utilize one or more parameters including an allowable delay amount as part of the decision regarding switching communication units. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure the decision provides the user with adequate quality of service when using the device as suggested by Vemuri.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2012/0028670) in view of Jahagirdar et al (US 11,656,666).
Regarding claim 8: Lim discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 8 that the processing unit determines whether or not switching of the communication unit is possible based on information regarding a state of connection to an external power supply. However, Jahagirdar discloses a system that manages the processing of a device based on the predicted future workload and power usage of the device, using “data from a calendar of a user” among other inputs (see 17:4-15, for example). Further, as indicated in Figure 2C and 22:1-8, the management of different “workloads” or hardware tasks is adjusted based in part on a state of connection to an external power supply (“when the computing device is predicted to next be connected to a power resource and/or a duration of the connection to a power resource”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to base the decision regarding switching the communication unit in part on a state of connection to an external power supply in a manner similar to that described by Jahagirdar. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the flexibility in the power management in Lim by including information regarding the likelihood of charging the battery in the decision to switch communication units as suggested by Jahagirdar.
Regarding claim 9: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 9 that the processing unit determines that switching of the communication unit is unnecessary when it is determined that the information processing apparatus is currently connected to the external power supply based on the information regarding the state of connection. However, Jahagirdar discloses a system that manages the processing of a device based on the predicted future workload and power usage of the device, using “data from a calendar of a user” among other inputs (see 17:4-15, for example). Further, as indicated in Figure 2C and 22:1-8, the management of different “workloads” or hardware tasks is adjusted based in part on a state of connection to an external power supply (“when the computing device is predicted to next be connected to a power resource and/or a duration of the connection to a power resource”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to base the decision regarding switching the communication unit in part on a state of connection to an external power supply in a manner similar to that described by Jahagirdar. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the flexibility in the power management in Lim by including information regarding whether the device is connected to a power resource (and how long this connection is expected to last) in the decision to switch communication units as suggested by Jahagirdar.
Regarding claim 10: Lim, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above. Lim further discloses that the processing unit determines that switching of the communication unit is unnecessary when it is determined that a remaining battery capacity is more than or equal to a predetermined value (see steps 506 and 510 of Figure 5, for example, which disclose that switching the communication unit is unnecessary when it is determined that the battery capacity (battery life) is greater than or equal to a threshold (the no branch from step 506)). Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10 that the processing unit determines that switching of the communication unit is unnecessary when it is determined that the information processing apparatus is currently connected to the external power supply based on the information regarding the state of connection. However, Jahagirdar discloses a system that manages the processing of a device based on the predicted future workload and power usage of the device, using “data from a calendar of a user” among other inputs (see 17:4-15, for example). Further, as indicated in Figure 2C and 22:1-8, the management of different “workloads” or hardware tasks is adjusted based in part on a state of connection to an external power supply (“when the computing device is predicted to next be connected to a power resource and/or a duration of the connection to a power resource”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to base the decision regarding switching the communication unit in part on a state of connection to an external power supply in a manner similar to that described by Jahagirdar. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the flexibility in the power management in Lim by including information regarding whether the device is connected to a power resource (and how long this connection is expected to last) in the decision to switch communication units as suggested by Jahagirdar.
Regarding claim 11: Lim discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Lim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 11 that the processing unit determines whether or not switching of the communication unit is possible based on information indicating a connectability to an external power supply. However, Jahagirdar discloses a system that manages the processing of a device based on the predicted future workload and power usage of the device, using “data from a calendar of a user” among other inputs (see 17:4-15, for example). Further, as indicated in Figure 2C and 22:1-8, the management of different “workloads” or hardware tasks is adjusted based in part on information indicating a connectability to an external power supply (“when the computing device is predicted to next be connected to a power resource and/or a duration of the connection to a power resource”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to base the decision regarding switching the communication unit in part on a state of connection to an external power supply in a manner similar to that described by Jahagirdar. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the flexibility in the power management in Lim by including information regarding the likelihood of charging the battery in the decision to switch communication units as suggested by Jahagirdar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 10,979,952) discloses a method for reducing power consumption of an electronic device.
Weast et al (US 2016/0262108) discloses a method for contextual power management.
Musial et al (US 2013/0227318) discloses a method for calendar-based power reserve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 November 6, 2025