Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/772,637

ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR INTERRUPT PROCESSING WITH LOW POWER CONSUMPTION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 15, 2024
Examiner
ZAMAN, FAISAL M
Art Unit
2175
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Mediatek Singapore Pte. LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
614 granted / 917 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
960
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
63.4%
+23.4% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 917 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because item 302 of Figure 3 shows an “internal processing unit”. However, the specification as well as the claims (e.g., Claim 8) describes this component as an “inertial processing unit”. Either the drawing or the specification and claims should be amended so that consistent terminology is used throughout the application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 2, 3, and 12-20 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 2 recites the limitation "the predetermined period" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the predetermined period" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the memory protect unit" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed this element is referring to the “memory protect monitor” recited in line 3. The “memory protect monitor” should be amended to recite --the memory protect unit-- in order to be consistent with the figures and specification as well as to provide antecedent basis for this element. All claims that are not specifically addressed are rejected due to a dependency. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 4-11 are allowed. Claims 2, 3, and 12-20 would be allowable if the § 112 rejections discussed above were addressed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the ultra-low power framework comprises an interrupt align and activity group, a memory predict monitor, and a task dynamic migration monitor; wherein the interrupt align and activity group aligns multiple interrupts, so that the coprocessor is waken up based on the aligned interrupts to perform all expired low power functions, and the application processor is aligned to wake up based on a wakeup of the coprocessor”, in conjunction with the other limitations in the claim. Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the ultra-low power framework comprises an interrupt align and activity group, a memory predict monitor, and a task dynamic migration monitor; aligning multiple interrupts by the interrupt align and activity group, so that the coprocessor is waken up based on the aligned interrupts to perform all expired low power functions, and the application processor is aligned to wake up based on a wakeup of the coprocessor”, in conjunction with the other limitations in the claim. The closest prior art of record is Lingutla et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0357248), Heo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0059365), and Raghunath et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0132096). Lingutla discloses a local memory 212, a plurality of global memories 105/126, an application processor 101, and a coprocessor 110. Lingutla further discloses aligning the wake times of the application processor and the coprocessor (Figure 5, items 514 and 526, paragraph 0058). However, Lingutla does not disclose that the coprocessor is waken up based on multiple aligned interrupts to perform all expired low power functions. Heo discloses a coprocessor 120 that wakes a main processor 110 in response to an interrupt (Figure 2, items S230-S260) but the coprocessor is not awoken based on multiple aligned interrupts to perform all expired low power functions. Rather, there is only a single interrupt that is used to awaken the coprocessor. Raghunath discloses a processor 12 that may service a plurality of interrupts after it is awakened by one of the interrupts so that it does not need to repeatedly awaken to service all of the pending interrupts (see paragraph 0016). But Raghunath does not disclose both an application processor and a coprocessor working together as required by the claim, where the coprocessor is waken up based on the aligned interrupts to perform all expired low power functions and the application processor is aligned to wake up based on a wakeup of the coprocessor. Rather, only a single processor is awoken and services all of the interrupts on its own. Accordingly, the claims are allowable. All claims that are not specifically addressed are allowable due to a dependency. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses an electronic device for coalescing interrupts and further determining optimal power reduction techniques for memory. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays. 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 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 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. /FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578780
CIRCUIT SLEEP METHOD AND SLEEP CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572490
LINKS FOR PLANARIZED DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560993
POWER MANAGEMENT OF DEVICES WITH DIFFERENTIATED POWER SCALING BASED ON RELATIVE POWER BENEFIT ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561267
Multiple Independent On-chip Interconnect
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562599
Contactless Power Feeder
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+9.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 917 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month