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 .
Detailed Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim 13 was previously an independent claim but has been amended to be a dependent claim that is dependent upon a cancelled claim. See the 112 rejection below.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 has been amended to be dependent upon a cancelled claim (Claim 12). Therefore, the limitations which claim 13 inherit are indefinite. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted as though it is dependent upon claim 1. However, appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0238531 in view of Bahulkar et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0181934 in further view of Su, U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0123927.
Per Claim 1, Wang discloses an Information Handling System (IHS) (Paragraph 13; notebook computer 100), comprising: a processor (Notebook computers comprise processors); and a memory coupled to the processor (Notebook computers comprise memory coupled to processors), the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to (Paragraphs 13 and 24; Wang teaches any combination of firmware, software, or hardware can be used to achieve the claimed invention. “It is even possible for the system 120 to utilize firmware to write-in the BIOS 110 to execute the method of the present invention.”): receive, by a pre-boot application (BIOS), telemetry data (Fig. 2; AC/DC power supply determination and/or remaining battery capacity), wherein the telemetry data comprises a current battery charge or level (Paragraph 15, Fig. 2 numeral 240; Remaining capacity of a battery); in response to a determination, by the pre-boot application, that a policy condition or rule is met based, at least in part, upon the telemetry data, modify a display setting (Paragraphs 13-15, Fig. 2; The remaining battery capacity is compared to a predetermined value at step 240. If the remaining battery capacity is below this value, then a screen brightness is reduced to reduce power consumption of the battery 140.).
Wang does not specifically disclose an embedded controller or determining a time-to-shutdown based, at least in part, upon a current battery charge or level. Wang also does not specifically teach prior to the time-to-shutdown and in response to the determination, auto-save a change to a configuration parameter received by the pre-boot application.
However, Bahulkar discloses a portable electronic device comprising a computing device (Paragraph 24; Glasses 100 comprise a computer 132). The computing device comprises a thermal runtime processor (212) that reads on the claimed embedded controller (Paragraphs 30-33, Fig. 2; Thermal runtime processor 212 provides a specific function to the computer 132 outside of the operations ordinarily handled by host processors.).
Bahulkar further teaches determining a time-to-shutdown based in part upon a current battery charge/level (Paragraph 16; “a method is provided for predicting a remaining runtime until a shutdown temperature is reached in an electronic device”. Thermal shutdown temperature represents a temperature reached by the computing device or a component within it that triggers a shutdown of the computing device. Paragraphs 100, 108, 109 and 117-119; Calculating a remaining thermal runtime represents the claimed time-to-shutdown as it is the time until a thermal shutdown temperature is reached which will shut down the electronic device. Paragraph 25 teaches that computer 132 comprises a battery 110 for powering the device. Paragraphs 30-33; Current power consumption is considered during thermal runtime predictions. Current power consumption is related to a batter charge/level because processing loads can be throttled based on a remaining battery charge level.).
Bahulkar also teaches throttling components of the electronic device in response to a predicted thermal runtime until shutdown (Paragraphs 58, 59, 62, and 64).
Bahulkar additionally teaches using the thermal runtime predictions to proactively warn a user so that a graceful shutdown process can be performed, including save the state of the computing device (Paragraphs 15 and 19).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teachings of Bahulkar within the system of Wang because it allows for corrective actions (throttling) to be taken to prolong device use and/or a graceful shutdown, including saving a device state, to be performed to avoid losing data (Bahulkar; Paragraphs 15, 19, 58, 59, 62, and 64).
Bahulkar does not specifically disclose that the “saving state” performed prior to the predicted thermal runtime shutdown including a “change to a configuration parameter received by a pre-boot application”.
However, Su teaches automatically saving changes/modifications to a BIOS as part of a BIOS modification automatic backup mode (Paragraphs 10, 44, and 48).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Su’s automatic BIOS modification backup teachings within the “saving state” procedure taught by Bahulkar because saving a modification to a pre-boot application ensures that the system can subsequently boot using the correct version of firmware/BIOS since it was properly backed up before any power loss or device failure occurs.
Per Claim 2, Wang discloses the IHS of claim 1, wherein the pre-boot application comprises a Basic Input/Output System (BIOS)/Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) application (Paragraphs 13-15; BIOS).
Wang does not specifically teach that the BIOS is configured to communicate with a remote server in a pre-boot environment.
However, Su teaches a BIOS application configured to communicate with a remote server in a pre-boot environment (Paragraphs 26-27; Remote management device 101 reads on the claimed server as it is described as “any suitable computing device” and it connects to the BMC 106 via a network interface for monitoring and managing hardware and software functionalities of server 102. Remote management device 101 stores updated BIOS configuration that can be used to modify a BIOS setting in BIOS 104.).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Su’s remote management device BIOS teachings within the computing device of Wang/Bahulkar because it allows for remote management functionality such as BIOS restoration (Su, Paragraph 33).
Per Claim 3, Wang discloses the IHS of claim 1, wherein the display setting comprises a display power state selected from the group consisting of: on, or standby (Figure 2; Both of the settings represented by numerals 230 and 250 represent display settings of the display being “on”.).
Per Claim 4, Wang discloses the IHS of claim 1, wherein the display setting comprises a display brightness level (Paragraphs 13-15; screen brightness value).
Per Claim 6, Wang discloses the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, cause the IHS to at least one of: reduce the display brightness level based, at least in part, upon a determination that the current battery charge or level is below a threshold (Paragraphs 13, 15, 20 and 22, Figure 2; Numerals 240 and 260); or increase the display brightness level based, at least in part, upon a determination that the current battery charge or level is below a threshold.
Per Claim 7, Wang discloses the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, cause the IHS to increase the display brightness level in response to a determination that the IHS is coupled to AC power (Paragraph 6; Fig. 2 numerals 220 and 230; The screen brightness value for the condition of being connected to AC power is higher than that of DC power. Therefore, a change in power connection from DC to AC would increase the screen brightness.).
Per Claim 13, Bahulkar further teaches prior to the time-to-shutdown, at least one of: notify a user of the IHS about an impending shutdown (Paragraphs 15 and 19; “warn a user”) or auto-save a change to a configuration parameter received by the pre-boot application (The auto-save limitation has been previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1.)
Per Claim 14, Wang does not specifically teach wherein the telemetry data comprises at least one of: Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) data, or presence detection data.
However, Bahulkar teaches ambient condition and light sensors being considered in thermal runtime prediction threshold calculations (Paragraphs 27 and 86-88).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Bahulkar’s light detection teachings within the system of Wang because situations where the electronic device is in directly sunlight will affect the thermal properties of the electronic device (Bahulkar; Paragraph 88).
Per Claim 15, Wang does not specifically teach the IHS of claim 1, wherein the processor and the memory are part of a heterogenous computing platform selected from the group consisting of: a System-On-Chip (SoC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), and an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).
However, Bahulkar teaches each of a SoC, FPGA, and ASIC embodiments (Paragraphs 14 and 60).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for system of Wang to include the SoC/FPGA/ASIC embodiment as taught by Bahulkar because such components are commonly used in portable electronic devices (Bahulkar; Paragraphs 14 and 60).
Per Claim 17, please refer to the above rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar and the mapping of the references to the limitations is equally applicable.
Per Claim 18, Wang discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the telemetry data further comprises at least one of: battery data (Paragraphs 13-15; remaining battery capacity), or processor data, and wherein the display setting comprises a display brightness (paragraphs 13-15; screen brightness).
Per Claim 21, please refer to the above rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar and the mapping of the references to the limitations is equally applicable. Additionally, both Bahulkar (Paragraphs 117 and 118) and Su (Paragraphs 75 and 76) teach computer readable medium embodiments.
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for system of Wang to be implemented in a software embodiment, as taught by Bahulkar and Su, because it is well known in the art that any instruction executed by the hardware can also be simulated in software and therefore the hardware and software embodiments are logically equivalent.
Per Claim 22, Wang further teaches wherein the telemetry data further comprises at least one of: battery data (Paragraphs 13-15; remaining battery capacity), or processor data, and wherein the display setting comprises a display brightness (paragraphs 13-15; screen brightness).
* * * * * * *
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0238531 in view of Bahulkar et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0181934 in further view of Su, U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0123927 in further view of Trim et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0271555.
Per Claim 11, Wang does not specifically teach utilizing a current load or utilization level of the processor for determining an action to take with respect to the display brightness level.
However, Trim teaches utilizing current processor workload for determining actions to be taken for prolonging battery life (Paragraph 34 and 44; Paragraph 39, “Processor 310 may also reduce the current battery discharge rate by reducing display brightness 316”).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Wang to implement Trim’s processor workload as an input metric for determining corrective actions to take for prolonging battery usage because a processors workload directly reflects the rate at which power will be consumed by the device.
* * * * * * *
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0238531 in view of Bahulkar et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0181934 in further view of Su, U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0123927 and Chen et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0283438.
Per Claim 16, Bahulkar teaches an RISC processor (Paragraph 60), but Wang/Bahulkar/Su does not the specific bus types of claim 16.
However, Chen discloses a notebook computer (Paragraph 26) comprising SoC devices (Paragraphs 31 and 36) and ARM cores coupled to AMBA interconnects (Paragraphs 34, 42, 43, and 46, Figure 3; ARM processing cores are examples of a RISC processor.)
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for system of Wang/Bahulkar/Su to include the SoC, ARM and AMBA interconnect, as taught by Chen, because it provides a user with the flexibility to run multiple different operating systems on the same device (Chen, Paragraphs 2-3 and 23).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record but not relied upon in the Examiner’s rejections is considering it pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure due to various teachings of thermal runtime thresholds and/or estimated runtime battery remaining.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights