DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 16-22 are pending in this application.
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
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, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C.N. No. 110618876 A to YU et al. in view of C.N. No. 108647086 A to Wang et al.
As to claim 1, YU teaches a method of building an Android running environment, comprising:
initiating a creation request (S203-S209) to an Android environment seed process (Android system) via an Inter-Process Communication (IPC) interface service (Linux is the Android inter-process communication mechanism Binder transplantation to the Linux function expansion for the Android) by a Linux service (Linux system), when the Linux service needs to start an Android service (Android system), the creation request comprising a path and a running parameter of a program corresponding to the Android service that needs to be started (S204-S209) (“…Further, the Linux is the Android inter-process communication mechanism Binder transplantation to the Linux function expansion for the Android, making the Binder library on Linux and the Android Binder library capable of performing communication by Company, ashmem device and driving of the kernel…Still further, the Binder transplantation to the Linux by Linux compiling and linking tool; specifically is the Binder source code in the Android source code project to modify according to the format and specification of Glib c, then the compilation and linkage to the dynamic library file available for Linux process invokes the Linux. Furthermore, the S2 specifically comprises the following steps:
S201, starting the Linux system;
S202, the Linux system is started and remains running, waiting for the starting Android system, the Android system starting to be after entering S211, the Android system starting process specifically is S203-S209;
S203, starts constructing the Android system when running;
S204, starting Android base environment adaptive initialization the init procedure;
S205, initializing the Native environment matching;
S206, starting Dailvk/ART;
S207, starting the matched Frameworks environment;
S208 and adapting the application environment;
S209 ensure that the Android system run-time environment has been constructed;
S210, Android terminal display, interactive adaptation;
S211, Linux end display, interactive adaptation;
S212, realize the Linux and the Android coexist on the same hardware platform, kernel and on the same user interface;
the S210 and the S211 in no particular order.
Furthermore, the S3 specifically comprises the following steps:
S301, starting the Linux process A, enters the main function;
S302, calling the function Glibc in the specified data written in the specific file;
S303, main function returns, ending the process;
S304, starting Android application B, and enters into the Java layer...”).
YU is silent with reference to running, the Android service by a fork process, after the Android environment seed process received the creation request.
Wang teaches running, the Android service (Android second application process) by a fork process (Zygote process), after the Android environment seed process received the creation request (notifying the second application process for bootup initialization) (“…In one embodiment of the present invention, in the above method, initializing the second application comprises: judging whether there is process of the second application, if there is, notifying the second application process for bootup initialization, if not, then establishing process of the second application, the newly created process is initialized by the initialization completion process initializing the Activity…For a warm start of application, because the process and activity of the original application is present, Briefly, only need to bootup initialization. and for application of cold start, it is necessary to firstly process of creating and implementing Activity by process initialization. The cold start application of the activity generally is an activity of or starting interface…In one embodiment of the present invention, in the above method, creating process of the second application includes: Zygote process of the Android system creates a new process, the newly created process as a process of the second application, to initialize the newly created progress comprises: notifying the newly created process starts initialization sub-thread is completed by initializing sub-thread newly created progress of initialization…all the process in the Android system is created from the master process Zygote (fork), and not the exception created new process in this embodiment. but it should be noted that when the new creation process is initialized, using the way of multi-thread, that is to say parallel one to realize the application switching, namely, finishing initialization of newly created by a initialization sub-thread…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of YU with the teaching of Wang because the teaching of Wang would improve the system of YU by providing a technique of creating a copy of a running process (a child process from a parent) or duplicating an entire software project's codebase to develop a separate, independent version, common in open-source development and thus providing extended or elastic processing.
As to claims 12 and 13, see the rejection of claim 1 above, expect for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, at least one processor; and a memory.
YU teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Memory), at least one processor (Processor) and a memory (Memory).
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W.O. No. 2012044558 A2 to Benedek et al. in view of C.N. No. 108647086 A to Wang et al.
As to claim 1, Benedek teaches a method of building an Android running environment, comprising:
initiating a creation request (Step 910) to an Android environment seed process (Remotable Object 904) via an Inter-Process Communication (IPC) interface service (IPC Driver (Binder) 525) by a Linux service (Hydriod OS/Hydroid Linux App1/2 982/984), when the Linux service needs to start an Android service (Service 941), the creation request comprising a path and a running parameter of a program corresponding to the Android service that needs to be started (The remote method call may include a parcel object that includes parameters for the remote method call) (“…At step 910, Hydroid application 382 makes a call to remotable object 904. For example, Hydroid application 382 may invoke a remotable method (F 1) of service 941. The remote method call may include a parcel object that includes parameters for the remote method call. Binder driver 424 marshals the parcel object to the process space of service 941 and service 941 receives the data at step 912. Service 941 unparcels the data and runs the method in its process space using the unparceled data at step 914. Service 941 returns a parcel object that includes return values of the method through binder driver 525 at steps 916 and 918. Using communication flow 900, Hydroid application 982, running on Hydroid OS 660, can access methods and data of service 941 of Android OS 430...Communications flow 900 provides thread-safe cross-process communication for sharing data between processes of Android OS 430 and applications of Hydroid OS 660. For example, Hydroid application 982 may access shared data of services of Android OS 430 through shared memory by passing references to the shared memory using remotable object 904…Communication flow 900 may be used to allow applications running on Hydroid OS 660 to access various services of Android OS 430. For example, service 941 of Android OS 430 may be a core service of Android OS 430 such as a telephony service, camera service, location service, etc. Alternatively, service 941 may be a custom service such as remote communication service 448...” paragraph 0100-0102).
Benedek is silent with reference to running, the Android service by a fork process, after the Android environment seed process received the creation request.
Wang teaches running, the Android service (Android second application process) by a fork process (Zygote process), after the Android environment seed process received the creation request (notifying the second application process for bootup initialization) (“…In one embodiment of the present invention, in the above method, initializing the second application comprises: judging whether there is process of the second application, if there is, notifying the second application process for bootup initialization, if not, then establishing process of the second application, the newly created process is initialized by the initialization completion process initializing the Activity…For a warm start of application, because the process and activity of the original application is present, Briefly, only need to bootup initialization. and for application of cold start, it is necessary to firstly process of creating and implementing Activity by process initialization. The cold start application of the activity generally is an activity of or starting interface…In one embodiment of the present invention, in the above method, creating process of the second application includes: Zygote process of the Android system creates a new process, the newly created process as a process of the second application, to initialize the newly created progress comprises: notifying the newly created process starts initialization sub-thread is completed by initializing sub-thread newly created progress of initialization…all the process in the Android system is created from the master process Zygote (fork), and not the exception created new process in this embodiment. but it should be noted that when the new creation process is initialized, using the way of multi-thread, that is to say parallel one to realize the application switching, namely, finishing initialization of newly created by a initialization sub-thread…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Benedek with the teaching of Wang because the teaching of Wang would improve the system of Benedek by providing a technique of creating a copy of a running process (a child process from a parent) or duplicating an entire software project's codebase to develop a separate, independent version, common in open-source development and thus providing extended or elastic processing.
As to claims 12 and 13, see the rejection of claim 1 above, expect for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, at least one processor; and a memory.
Benedek teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Storage Device 208), at least one processor (Processor 114) and a memory (Memory 206).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 16-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of records, (C.N. No. 110618876 A to YU et al., C.N. No. 108647086 A to Wang et al. and W.O. No. 2012044558 A2 to Benedek et al.), taken alone or in combination do not specifically disclose or suggest the claimed recitations (claims 2-8 and 16-22), when taken in the context of claims as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued in substance that (1) in the YU prior art, the creation of an Android system is performed automatically during initialization and not via creation request, (2) the use of Inter-process Communication of the YU prior art different from that of the instant application, (3) the YU and Wang prior arts do not teach running the Android service by a fork process, (4) the Benedek prior art does not teach a call to an already existing or created Android service, as such does not create an Android service and (5) the Benedek prior does not teach Inter-process Communication as claimed.
The Examiner disagrees.
As to points (1&2), firstly, the disclosed invention is replete with “start(ing)” in relation to the creating request. The YU prior art discloses a system for a Feiterng-based platform with shared kernel of Linux and Android coexisting and interacting. The coexistence and interaction includes starting an Android system using a Linux system. The starting of the Android system using the Linux system includes constructing (creating) the Android system, contrary to the Applicants arguments (see Steps S203/S403). The interaction between the Linux system and Android system is performed through inter-process communication mechanism Binder transplantation. During the inter-process communication a Linux system is started in a main function, then a function is invoked to start the Android system/application. In essence, the Linux system is started in order to start/construct the Android system via inter-process communication invocation or request.
As to point (3), the Wang prior art discloses an application switching method and device in an Android system. The Android system is run in a foreground application. In the event there is a need to run other applications, the application switching is performed. Firstly, the a first application suspended and a second application is invoked to create or fork a new process. A Zygote process of the Android system functions to create or fork the new process (claimed).
As to points (4&5), the Benedek prior art discloses a inter-process Binder communication between Hydroid OS (Linux) and Android OS. Applications in the Hydroid OS invokes or requests the start/construction of services in an Android OS for instance, telephone, camera, custom, remote communication and location services. As in the instant application, Android OS exists (disclosed Android Environment) but during inter-process Binder communication/invocation services (claimed Android service) are started/created.
Note, the Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the specification and claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights