DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 28 April 2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections based on prior art. However, they have also necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 7-14, 17, 18, 24, 32, and 33 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites a step to “limit the computing device to the crossover thresholds at ones of the multiple wake intervals”. The specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for this step.
The specification teaches that a “crossover threshold” is a point in time defined by a “wake interval” at which the power consumption for a first sleep state equals the power consumption for a second sleep state [para. 0055: “The example crossover threshold 308 is defined when the power output data from the third plot 306 is equal to the power output data from the second plot 304. The example crossover threshold 308 is defined at a first wake interval (e.g., 8 ms).”]. On this basis, limiting the device to the crossover threshold could appear to, for example, place a limit on the length of the wake intervals, or place some other limit that is based on time. The specification fails to clearly articulate what such a limitation would entail.
Elsewhere, the specification teaches “limiting” in relation to the sleep state, indicating that the “limiting” places a limit on the power consumption. However, these teachings are neither clear nor consistent Para. 0026 teaches “..controller circuitry to limit the computing device to a lower sleep state based on at least one of the crossover thresholds”, whereas para. 0047 teaches “…controller circuitry 206 limits the computing device to a higher sleep state based on at least one of the crossover thresholds.” Besides appearing contradictory, the use of “lower” and “higher” is unclear because the specification does not indicate whether this refers to the amount of power consumption or the sleep state number (see the rejection of claim 10 based on 112(b) that follows). Even assuming that power consumption was in view, it unclear which sleep state would be the “higher” or “lower” sleep state since, as the graphs in Fig. 3-6 illustrate, whether a sleep state has a higher or lower power consumption relative to another depends on the length of the wake interval – specifically, whether the wake interval under consideration is longer or shorter than the wake interval associated with the crossover threshold1.
Para. 0070 teaches “In some examples, the assigner circuitry 208 can change the sleep state of the device 104 from a high power consumption sleep state to a lower power consumption sleep state depending on the crossover thresholds of the device 104 and/or the length of the wake interval. For example, in FIG. 4, the assigner circuitry 208 can change the sleep state of the device 104 from the higher power consumption sleep state of plot 406 to the lower power consumption sleep state of plot 404 based on the crossover threshold 408.” However, para. 0070 fails to clearly indicate what aspect of the crossover threshold determines the change in sleep state, nor does it articulate any criteria for changing the sleep state based on the length of the wake interval. For example, the specification fails to disclose any comparison of a current wake interval to the length of time associated with the crossover threshold. The specification fails to teach, for example, that for two given sleep states, the computing system could switch to the sleep state that has the lower power consumption when the wake interval exceeds the length of time associated the crossover threshold.
Because the specification discloses the step of “limiting” in an inconsistent fashion (i.e., limiting in time vs. limiting in power consumption, limiting to a higher or lower sleep state), and because it fails to clearly articulate criteria for changing the sleep state, it would have required undue experimentation from one of ordinary skill in the art to execute the step to “limit the computing device to the crossover thresholds at ones of the multiple wake intervals.” Specifically, it would have required one of ordinary skill in the art to infer or assume what is meant by “higher” and “lower” sleep states, as well as the circumstances that would necessitate a change to a higher vs. lower sleep state. It would also have required one of ordinary skill in the art to infer or assume how to evaluate the wake intervals in relation to the crossover thresholds in order to determine a change in sleep state. Because of the specification fails to articulate these teachings and requires these inferences and assumptions from one of ordinary skill in the art, it fails to provide an enabling disclosure. Claims 11 and 18 are rejected on the same basis.
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 1-4, 7-14, 17, 18, 24, 32, and 33 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite because the step to “limit the computing device to the crossover thresholds at ones of the multiple wake intervals” is unclear for reasons articulated in the rejection based on 112(a).
Claim 1 is also indefinite because the use of “one” and “ones” in the claim is unclear. Claim 1 recites a step of identifying crossover thresholds at “ones” of the multiple wake intervals. Claim 1 also recites a “first one of the crossover thresholds” and a “second one of the crossover thresholds”. It is unclear if the “first one” and the “second one” are associated with the “ones” of multiple wake intervals because, while the language used is similar, the wake intervals and crossover threshold represent different values in the invention.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it recites the limitation “second power output data of a second sleep state” in line 14. Claim 1 has already provided an original recitation of a second power output data of a second sleep state in line 12. It is therefore unclear whether the second power output data and the second sleep state of line 14 refers to the original recitation of line 12, or a different element.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it recites a step to limit the computing device to crossover thresholds “at ones of the multiple wake intervals” in lines 17-18. Claim 1 has previously recited “ones of the multiple wake intervals” in line 10. It is therefore unclear whether the “ones” of line 17 is the same “ones” as line 10, or a different element.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the at least one of the crossover thresholds”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. There is no prior original recitation of “at least one of the crossover thresholds” in claim 8 or is parent (claim 1). The Examiner notes this limitation is first recited in claim 2, which is not a parent of claim 8.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it recites a “higher sleep state”. It is unclear what aspect of the sleep state is described by “higher”. For example, it is unclear whether “higher” refers to the power consumption level or the sleep state number. The specification uses the phrase “higher sleep state” without explaining what is described by “higher” [para. 0047]. The specification also refers to a “higher power consumption sleep state” [para. 0070], and also a deep sleep state comprising sleep states C8 and C10 which have a higher sleep state number compared to shallow sleep states [para. 0038]. It is noted that sleep states with higher numbers have lower power consumption. Therefore, it is unclear whether limiting a device to a ”higher sleep state” limits the device to a sleep state with low power consumption, or a sleep state with high power consumption. Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 12-14 and 17 recite the limitation “the computer readable storage medium”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
1 In Fig. 3, sleep state 304 has a lower power consumption than sleep state 306 if the wake interval exceeds the time associated with crossover threshold 308, but it has a higher power consumption if the wake interval is shorter than the time associated with crossover threshold 308.
Prosecution Insights