DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 01-30-2025.
Domestic Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) (International) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02-16-2024 and 07-18-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97
Claims Objections
(i) Claims 3 and 5 are rejected to because the claims contain the term “if”, of which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard make the expression following the term as optional limitation under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, thereby not narrowing the claim limitations following the term since they can be omitted. Indeed, a dictionary defines the term “if” as a “conditional clause”. Similarly, the term “should” is also defined as a conditional clause because expresses the meaning “what is probable”. Other terms also found to be deficient are: may, might, can, could, potentially, possible ….etc. In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 And Ex parte Schulhauser, see MPEP 2111.04 (II)
Nonetheless, provided applicant does intend to have these limitations to have patentable weight, the claims above must positively recite the claim limitation without invoking optional language. Once such term that courts have found to positively recite a condition is the term “when”.
(ii) Claims 1-15 are numbered using brackets which adds ambiguity to the claims. Instead, claims should be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals followed by a period.
(iii) Claim 4 contains a forward slash, for which the meaning of the symbol can be interpreted in a number of ways, which adds ambiguity to the claims.
(iv) Independent claim 1, 10 and 15 fail to include a preamble.
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 11 recites the limitation "the threshold value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the setting lower limit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 8-10, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0380012 (hereinafter, “Tsuda”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0323974 (hereinafter, “Shuster”).
As per claim(s) 1,10 and 151, Tsuda discloses a comprising a information terminal includes a battery, a controller, and a memory apparatus, (Fig. 1 illustrates a telematic terminal, processor controller, storage memory and battery ¶ [0045] ) wherein the controller performs prediction of electricity usage and power charging opportunity prediction from schedule be memorized in the memory apparatus, and (inter alia: ¶s [004] discloses a power assistance system where “predicted power consumption of the vehicle calculated on the basis of a future traveling schedule of the vehicle; and a charging condition at each predicted stop place based on the traveling schedule”. Additionally, ¶s [0026], [0059], Fig’s 2-14.)
sets power saving mode with different power saving level to reduce power consumption based on the power charging opportunity, (change a power consumption pattern so as to suppress usage of power based on power charging condition; Fig. 9)
Tsuda does not distinctly disclose the following:
a mobile information terminal includes a second battery; and
sets power saving mode with different power saving level to reduce power consumption based on the prediction of electricity usage.
However, Shuster explicitly discloses the following:
a comprising a mobile information terminal includes a battery, a controller, and a memory apparatus, ((cell phone ; Fig’s 1-2, ¶ 0037] and batteries ¶ [0068] ) wherein the controller performs prediction of electricity usage and power charging opportunity prediction from schedule be memorized in the memory apparatus, and (¶ 0039] states “predicted power requirements prior to the next charging opportunity” . The charging opportunity is based on “predictive charging” that uses the user’s “analysis of calendar” . ¶ [0049] Similarly, the predicative usage is also based on user’s calendar. ¶ [0054]) )
sets power saving mode with different power saving level to reduce power consumption based on the prediction of electricity usage and the power charging opportunity. (Fig’s 3-5 illustrate the invention of reducing power consumption based on predicted usage and charging status. Also, ¶ 0049] further discloses another example how the charging status of the device is predicted based on alarm set on a calendar)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tsuda and Shuster because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Shuster’s teaching of reducing power usage based on power consumption and charging status would enhance Tsuda's system by extending the operation time of the device, thus allowing a better power management for the user.
As per claim 2, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein if each time on the schedule is expected to deviate from actual usage, the power saving mode setting is dynamically modified based on the expected time. (Shuster: Fig 3 illustrates of reducing power usage of the device based on “analysis of calendar for the next day or other time period” . Because user’s calendar events are not static, it would be apparent that the implementation of power reduction is dynamic. )
As per claim 3, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the mobile information terminal predicts the remaining battery capacity of the second battery at the next charging opportunity from the prediction of electricity usage and power charging opportunity prediction, and changes the power saving mode so that the power saving level becomes higher if the remaining battery capacity prediction falls below a setting lower limit value. (Shuster: Fig’s 3-4 illustrate the concepts where “the level of battery charge is determined” and modifying the power consumption of the device when the “device having a battery level below a threshold level”; abstract and ¶ [0070] discloses “when 20% is left, the screen may dim. When 5% is left, the device may automatically hibernate. “ )
As per claim 4, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the prediction of electricity usage performs prediction from the viewing reservation and/or the scheduled use of application software with high load, and (Shuster discloses the invention where “predicted battery usage of tasks associated with calendar events” is determined. [abstract]. The task, if further explained as “power intense tasks” that includes a “game” application ¶ [ 0078] the power charging opportunity prediction performs prediction that the opportunity to charge and the chargeable opportunity from the time of go there. (Shuster: charging based on predicted location ¶ [0049]) & (Tsuda: charging plan based on dates and locations; Fig’s 9-14 )
As per claim 5, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein if battery capacity of the second battery falls below the setting lower limit value at the next charging opportunity, the controller determines whether the power can be covered by power interchange from other mobile information terminals or mobile batteries. ( Shuster: power may be exchanged between devices ¶ [0086] and determine when a “device having a battery level below a threshold level” [abstract] )
As per claim 6, Tsuda as modified discloses, wherein the mobile information terminal changes the setting lower limit value according to the predicted arrival time to the charging opportunity, and the longer the predicted arrival time to the charging opportunity, performs to larger the setting lower limit value. (Shuster: Fig 1A column g discloses different battery levels with some battery levels lower and some larger. Based on these battery levels a predicted usage for devices prior to the next charging opportunity is calculated.)
As per claim 7, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the mobile information terminal changes the setting lower limit value according to the predicted time that can be charged at the charging opportunity, the shorter the predicted time that can be charged, performs to the larger the setting lower limit value. (Shuster: Fig 1A column g discloses different battery levels with some battery levels lower and some larger. Based on these battery levels a predicted usage for devices prior to the next charging opportunity is calculated.)
As per claim 8, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the prediction of electricity usage is performed by considering the power usage result of the user. and (Shuster: discloses the invention where “predicted battery usage of tasks associated with calendar events” of the user) & (Tsuda: Fig. 1 illustrates a telematic terminal, processor controller, storage memory and battery ¶ [0045] ) wherein the controller performs prediction of electricity usage and power charging opportunity prediction from schedule be memorized in the memory apparatus, and (inter alia: ¶s [004] discloses a power assistance system where “predicted power consumption of the vehicle calculated on the basis of a future traveling schedule of the vehicle; and a charging condition at each predicted stop place based on the traveling schedule”. Additionally, ¶s [0026], [0059], Fig’s 2-14.)
As per claim 9, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the power charging opportunity prediction is performed by considering the electric action history of the user. (Shuster discloses the invention where “predicted battery usage of tasks associated with calendar events” of the user) & (Tsuda: Fig. 1 illustrates a telematic terminal, processor controller, storage memory and battery ¶ [0045] ) wherein the controller performs prediction of electricity usage and power charging opportunity prediction from schedule be memorized in the memory apparatus, and (inter alia: ¶s [004] discloses a power assistance system where “predicted power consumption of the vehicle calculated on the basis of a future traveling schedule of the vehicle; and a charging condition at each predicted stop place based on the traveling schedule”. Additionally, ¶s [0026], [0059], Fig’s 2-14.)
As per claim 13, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the controller searches for charging spots and notifies the user when the set power saving mode is at the maximum power saving level and the secondary battery needs to be charged. (Shuster: abstract discloses where the user is alerted that the device is put in a “low power mode”. Further, it discloses how charging will be available on the flight, at the meeting location. And, Fig 2 illustrates status of the battery and how battery predictive charging ¶ [0058]-[0072] )
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0380012 (hereinafter, “Tsuda”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0323974 (hereinafter, “Shuster”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 8,411,870 (hereinafter, “Shimoharada”).
As per claim 11, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the longer the arrival time to the charging opportunity, the larger the threshold value for switching to the power saving mode. (Shuster: Fig 1A column g discloses different battery levels with some battery levels lower and some larger. Based on these battery levels a predicted usage for devices prior to the next charging opportunity is 290 miles away. Further, abstract discloses “manages device power and resources by modifying and/or transferring tasks from a device having a battery level below a threshold level to one or more other devices with a higher battery levels.” For example, Fig 5 illustrates remaining battery before implementing any of the power savings illustrated by 503b-d )
Tsuda as modified does not distinctly discloses switching to multiple power modes based on the different battery levels.
However, Shimoharada discloses that. In particular, it discloses the following:
discloses wherein the longer the arrival time to the charging opportunity, the larger the threshold value for switching to the power saving mode. (Fig. 3 illustrates how based on different residual battery available, implementing a different power saving mode)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tsuda as modified and Shimoharada because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Shimoharada’s teaching of implementing different power modes based on the multiple battery levels would enhance Tsuda's as modified system by extending the operation time of the device even longer, thus allowing a better power management for the user.
As per claim 12, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the threshold value is changed according to the predicted time that can be charged at the charging opportunity, and the shorter the predicted time that can be charged, the larger the threshold value is. (Shuster: Fig 1A column g discloses different battery levels with some battery levels lower and some larger. Based on these battery levels a predicted usage for devices prior to the next charging opportunity is 290 miles away)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0380012 (hereinafter, “Tsuda”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0323974 (hereinafter, “Shuster”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0257657 (hereinafter, “Ofir”).
As per claim 14, Tsuda as modified discloses wherein the mobile information terminal comprising: a display, wherein the mobile information terminal displays the charging spot (Shuster: Fig 1A shows the dashboard display that displays the next charging opportunity station is 290 miles away.
Tsuda as modified does not distinctly disclose a display superimposed on the external image.
However, Ofir discloses a display superimposed on the external image. (at least ¶ [0010] discloses head mounted devices where information images can be superimposed )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tsuda as modified and Ofir because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Ofir’s teaching of superimposing information images would enhance Tsuda's as modified system by allowing the user of the head mounted device to better navigate to a location, thus enhancing user’s navigation.
Conclusion
With respect to any newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP §714.02 and § 2163.06. For example, when responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per independent claim(s) 10, 15, these claims are substantially equivalent to system claim(s) 1, because the additional feature(s) are present on any off the shelf general-purpose computer. Therefore, for at least this reason, claims 10 and 15 also stand rejected. Indeed, at least Fig. 1 best illustrates the claimed feature(s).
Prosecution Insights