DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 112
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 6-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 14, line 2 recites “a data frame”. It is unclear whether different data frame or the same data frame recited in the parent claim 1.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected for their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5,9-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 20240215088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a data frame comprising frame sync data [0036] [0206-0207: the master device determines the wake-up period based on a period in which the remote cloud server pushes the message to WeChat®.];
adjusting, based on the frame sync data, a sleep phase of a first clock circuit [clock circuit of the master device] operating in accordance with a first frequency [0036] [0206-0207: sleep periods based on the message from remote cloud server] [0208-0211] [Fig. 15]; and
setting, based on the sleep phase, a wake phase of the first clock circuit [0036] [0206-0207: setting wake up periods based on the sleep periods] [0208-0211] [Fig. 15]; and
aligning, based on the wake phase, an active phase of a second clock circuit with the wake phase, the second clock circuit operating in accordance with a second frequency different from the first frequency [0036] [0208-0211] [Fig. 15] [aligning the wake up and sleep windows between first device (master) clock and second device (slave) clock].
[0036] The first electronic device determines a wake-up period of the first electronic device based on a periodic connection established between a first application on the first electronic device and a cloud server of the first application, where the first application is any application on the first electronic device; and the first electronic device synchronizes the wake-up period to the second electronic device, where the wake-up period is the same as the first time period that is periodically set.
[0208] FIG. 15 is a schematic diagram of triggering a heartbeat inquiry in a wake-up period according to an embodiment of this application. With reference to FIG. 14, it can be learned that wake-up periods of the first electronic device and the second electronic device are the same (for example, 5 minutes), and the first electronic device and the second electronic device synchronize wake-up clocks, and align wake-up windows. The wake-up windows include a wake-up state and a back-end state. On this basis, the first electronic device and the second electronic device trigger the heartbeat inquiry in the back-end state.
[0209] In addition, still as shown in FIG. 15, when the first electronic device and the second electronic device align the wake-up windows, a window for triggering the heartbeat inquiry is also aligned. To be specific, the first electronic device and the second electronic device trigger the heartbeat inquiry at a same moment. In this way, a duty cycle is dynamically adjusted, so that the CPU (or the chip) can be used in a lowest power consumption manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein setting the wake phase comprises fixing the wake phase with a predetermined time [0208-0211] [Fig. 15] [aligning the waking windows with the predetermine time].
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein aligning the active phase of the second clock circuit comprises aligning a ramp up portion of the active phase with initiation of the wake phase [0208-0211] [Fig. 15] [aligning wake up period between clocks].
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the wake phase is greater than or equal to the ramp up portion [0208-0211] [Fig. 15] [aligning wake up period between clocks].
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first clock circuit is configured to a second sleep phase while the second clock circuit is in the active phase [0206- 0211 and Fig. 15] [different active and sleep windows for both clocks].
Regarding claims 9-13, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-5 above.
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 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 of this title, 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 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20240215088 A1) in view of Liu (US 20230123281 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the second frequency is greater than the first frequency.
However, Liu discloses the second frequency is greater than the first frequency [0006: computing cores for normal operation at the first main clock frequency is greater than the first pass rate upper threshold, causing the main clock frequency unit to provide a second main clock frequency higher than the first main clock frequency for the plurality of computing cores.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Liu together because they both directed to use different frequency for the devices. Liu’s disclosing of different frequency for different cores would allow Wang to synchronize the clocks for the sleep and wake up periods between low and high clock devices.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,7,14,15 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.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record do not disclose the limitations in claims 6,7,14,15 and 17-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m.
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.
/PHIL K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176