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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-13, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Ganesh et al. (US 2014/0051379).
Referring to Claim 1, Ganesh teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, that an operating condition of a battery- powered device has been met (see paragraph 36 which shows the network server, which is the computing device receiving information regarding an emergency which enables the server to determine that the emergency condition has been met), wherein the operating condition is associated with a state of at least one of the battery-powered device, a battery for the battery-powered device, or a peripheral device associated with the battery-powered device (see paragraph 11 which shows the emergency situation determined based on information regarding battery consumption and paragraph 82 which shows the emergency condition triggered by the battery drain meeting a threshold both of which are associated with a state of at least one of the battery-powered device and a battery for the battery-powered device);
determining, by the computing device and based on the operating condition and a network priority for the battery-powered device, an operating parameter of the battery-powered device to be changed (see paragraphs 37 and 38 which shows the server determining priorities to each of the mobile devices based on which mobile user are in the most need of help and the mobile device changing of a parameter to an emergency mode); and
causing, by the computing device, the operating parameter to be changed from a first value to a second value (see paragraph 58 which shows the operating parameter changed from a normal mode to an emergency mode).
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1 other than a processor and memory which is taught in paragraph 26 of Ganesh.
Referring to Claim 16, Ganesh teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining that a value indicating an operating condition of a battery-powered device meets a threshold (see paragraph 36 which shows the network server, which is the computing device receiving information regarding an emergency from a mobile device which enables the server to determine that the emergency condition has been met and paragraph 82 shows the battery drain meeting a threshold), wherein the operating condition is associated with a state of at least one of the battery-powered device, a battery for the battery-powered device, or a peripheral device associated with the battery-powered device (see paragraph 11 which shows the emergency situation determined based on information regarding battery consumption and paragraph 82 which shows the emergency condition triggered by the battery drain meeting a threshold both of which are associated with a state of at least one of the battery-powered device and a battery for the battery-powered device);
determining, based on the value indicating the operating condition and a network priority for the battery-powered device, an operating parameter of the battery-powered device to be changed (see paragraphs 37 and 38 which shows the server determining priorities to each of the mobile devices based on which mobile user are in the most need of help and the mobile device changing of a parameter to an emergency mode); and
causing the operating parameter to be changed from a first value to a second value (see paragraph 58 which shows the operating parameter changed from a normal mode to an emergency mode).
Referring to Claim 2, Ganesh also teaches the operating condition of the battery-powered device is determined based on one or more of a current state of the battery-powered device, historical information associated with the battery-powered device, a current state of the battery, historical information associated with the battery, a current behavior of a peripheral device associated with the battery-powered device, or a specified time interval (see paragraph 44 which shows the mobile device sending current battery information as well as the current state of the device to the server).
Referring to Claim 3, Ganesh also teaches historical information including at least one of a change over time in radio frequency (RF) signal strength of the battery-powered device, a frequency of transmissions by the battery-powered device, a historical power consumption of the battery-powered device, or information indicating historical behavior of the peripheral device associated with the battery-powered device (see paragraph 116 which shows historical power consumption of the device).
Referring to Claim 5, Ganesh also teaches the operating condition determined for a specified time interval (see paragraph 3 which shows the setting of time windows for which the mobile device communicates with the network).
Referring to Claims 7 and 18, Ganesh also teaches determining, by the computing device, the network priority of the battery-powered device based on at least one of a recent operating behavior of the battery-powered device, a type of peripheral device associated with the battery-powered device, an account type associated with the battery-powered device, a quantity of network traffic routed through the battery-powered device, or a state of the peripheral device (see paragraphs 37 and 38 which shows the server determining priorities to each of the mobile devices based on which mobile user are in the most need of help and the mobile device changing of a parameter to an emergency mode).
Referring to Claims 8 and 19, Ganesh also teaches determining the operating parameter of the battery-powered device to be changed comprising determining one or more operating parameters of the battery-powered device that are eligible to be changed, wherein the one or more operating parameters of the battery-powered device that are eligible to be changed are determined based on at least one of the network priority of the battery-powered device or the operating condition of the battery-powered device (see paragraphs 37 and 38 which shows the server determining priorities to each of the mobile devices based on which mobile user are in the most need of help and the mobile device changing of a parameter to an emergency mode and paragraph 58 which shows the operating parameter changed from a normal mode to an emergency mode).
Referring to Claims 9 and 20, Ganesh also teaches determining the operating parameter of the battery-powered device to be changed comprising determining one or more communication parameters of the battery-powered device that are eligible to be changed, wherein the one or more communication parameters of the battery-powered device that are eligible to be changed include at least one of an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) value, a paging window duration, a data push schedule, a wireless operating mode, or a number of new device beacon transmissions that are to be skipped (paragraph 58 which shows the operating parameter as a wireless operating mode changed from a normal mode to an emergency mode).
Referring to Claim 10, Ganesh also teaches determining the second value based on a change in power consumption of the battery-powered device associated with the second value (see paragraph 41 which shows the determining of the emergency mode based on a higher power consumption mode by the mobile device).
Referring to Claim 12, Ganesh also teaches causing the operating parameter of the battery-powered device to be updated from the first value to the second value comprises transmitting the second value to the battery-powered device from a computing device separate from the battery-powered device (see paragraph 44 which shows the server sending notifications to the mobile device to enter the emergency mode).
Referring to Claim 13, Ganesh also teaches wherein the battery-powered device determines that the operating condition of the battery-powered device has been met and that the operating parameter of the battery-powered device is to be updated (see paragraph 46 which shows the mobile device determining to enter the emergency mode based on collected data of the mobile device).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh in view of Kandler (US 2020/0116793).
Referring to Claim 4, Ganesh does not teach the operating condition varying over an operational lifespan of the computing device. Kandler teaches the operating condition varying over an operational lifespan of the computing device (see paragraphs 25 and 26 which show how the estimation of a lifespan of a device is calculated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Kandler to the device of Ganesh in order to better maintain connectivity between devices by more efficient maintenance and monitoring.
Referring to Claim 14, Kandler also teaches determining an operational lifespan of the battery as less than an operational lifespan of the battery-powered device, wherein the second value corresponds to a lower power consumption by the battery- powered device (see paragraph 79 which shows the determination of the lifespan of the device as well as the lifespan of the battery of the device and paragraph 37 which shows the power reduction if necessary). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Kandler to the device of Ganesh in order to better maintain connectivity between devices by more efficient maintenance and monitoring.
Referring to Claim 15, Kandler also teaches determining an operational lifespan of the battery as greater than an operational lifespan of the battery-powered device, wherein the second value corresponds to a higher power consumption by the battery-powered device (see paragraph 79 which shows the determination of the lifespan of the device as well as the lifespan of the battery of the device and paragraph 37 which shows the power reduction if necessary). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Kandler to the device of Ganesh in order to better maintain connectivity between devices by more efficient maintenance and monitoring.
Referring to Claims 6 and 17, Kandler also teaches the operating condition of the battery-powered device modified over an operational lifespan of the battery-powered device to reflect changes in the state of at least one of the battery-powered device, the battery for the battery-powered device, or the peripheral device associated with the battery-powered device. (see paragraph 25 which shows the lifespan of the device estimated which affects certain variables including power consumption as shown in paragraph 6 where these variables are shown to be operating conditions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Kandler to the device of Ganesh in order to better maintain connectivity between devices by more efficient maintenance and monitoring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that Ganesh does not teach the amended independent claims because the reference teaches emergency situations such as fire, accident, etc. and not situations related to the battery powered device. While Ganesh shows emergency situations as fire, accident, etc., Ganesh also shows situations for emergency including situations involving the device. Paragraph 11 of Ganesh very clearly states that emergency situations are based on battery consumption and that is associated with a state of at least one of the battery-powered device and a battery for the battery-powered device. For this reason, Ganesh teaches amended claims 1, 11, and 16.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 and 17 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.
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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights