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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a wake-up detection module, receiving a wake-up event in a low power consumption mode and determining whether the wake-up event is an unexpected wake-up event”, “a battery data collection and analysis module, analyzing battery statistic data when the wake-up event is the unexpected wake-up event to generate an analysis result” and “a power saving system module, adjusting a status of a plurality of background applications operating in a background according to the analysis result” (claim 6);
“the battery data collection and analysis module identifies a plurality of target applications that have woken up a system from the background applications and records the target applications in the analysis result” (claim 9); and
“the power saving system module determines whether each of the target applications is in an app standby mode, removes the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background, and enables the target applications that are not in the app standby mode to enter the app standby mode” (claim 10).
The functionality of the above listed limitations is implemented in software by a processor loading from memory and executing the “wake-up detection module”, “battery data collection and analysis module” and “power saving system module”, respectively (see paragraph 0019 in the specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0143568 in view of Gargash et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0227583.
Regarding claim 6, KIM discloses an electronic device (FIG(s) 1-7), comprising:
a memory, storing a plurality of modules (FIG. 1, memory 120); and
a processor (FIG. 1, control unit 110 being a processor – paragraph 0025, lines 4-7), coupled to the memory and loading and executing the modules stored in the memory (paragraph 0026, lines 1-4), the modules comprising:
a wake-up detection module (software functionality implemented by the control unit 110 executing corresponding program instructions from memory 120 for implementing the wake-up detection module – paragraph 0025, lines 4-7, paragraph 0026, lines 1-4, paragraph 0029, lines 10-16), receiving a wake-up event in a low power consumption mode (paragraph 0006, lines 1-3, paragraph 0022, lines 2-4, FIG. 2, 206, paragraph 0032, lines 1-2);
a battery data collection and analysis module (software functionality implemented by the control unit 110 executing corresponding program instructions from memory 120 for implementing the battery data collection and analysis module – paragraph 0025, lines 4-7, paragraph 0026, lines 1-4, paragraph 0029, lines 10-16), analyzing battery statistic data (monitoring and recording/logging over a predetermined time period the number of times automatic wakeup events generated by background apps occur during sleep mode – paragraph 0006, paragraph 0022, lines 2-7, lines 13-17, FIG. 2, 206, paragraph 0032, FIG. 3, paragraph 0035, lines 11-15) to generate an analysis result (ranking the apps based on the logged statistical data in view of battery usage/drain – paragraph 0007, lines 1-8, paragraph 0022, lines 7-9, FIG. 2, 208, paragraph 0033, lines 1-7, FIG. 3, paragraph 0036); and
a power saving system module (software functionality implemented by the control unit 110 executing corresponding program instructions from memory 120 for implementing the power saving system module – paragraph 0025, lines 4-7, paragraph 0026, lines 1-4, paragraph 0029, lines 10-16), adjusting a status of a plurality of background applications operating in a background according to the analysis result (based on the ranking, blocking automatic wake-ups of background apps or deleting apps – i.e. adjusting a status of a plurality of background applications operating in a background according to the analysis result; paragraph 0007, lines 8-13, paragraph 0022, lines 17-21, paragraph 0025, lines 12-14, FIG. 2, 210, paragraph 0033, lines 7-11, FIG. 4, 420-422, paragraph 0056, FIG. 5, 534, 538, paragraph 0062, lines 1-8, FIG. 7, 710, 720, paragraph 0061, lines 6-12).
KIM does not specifically state determining whether the wake-up event is an unexpected wake-up event, and in response analyzing the battery statistic data to generate an analysis result (the analyzing and generating the analysis result functionality is disclosed by KIM and addressed above).
Gargash teaches upon determining receipt of unexpected wake-up requests (wake-up events) during the sleep state of a portable computing device (PCD, FIG. 1), the scheduler detects premature wake-up for a resource (due to the unexpected wake-up request) and issues cancellation for the unexpected wake-up request (paragraph 0005, lines 19-25, FIG. 30, paragraph 0289, lines 1-4, paragraph 0291, lines 5-9, paragraphs 0292-0293, paragraph 0296, lines 1-8). Thus, efficiently managing the resources for saving power (paragraph 0004, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above described computing device and functionality, as suggested by Gargash with the device disclosed by KIM in order to implement determining whether the wake-up event is an unexpected wake-up event, and in response analyzing the battery statistic data to generate an analysis result. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to efficiently manage the resources for saving power.
Regarding claim 7, Gargash further teaches the device wherein the unexpected wake-up event is not the wake-up event initiated by the background applications (the unexpected wake-ups in Gargash are not related to running background applications but are associated with the sleep/wake-up functionality of a resource [e.g. CPU 110] – paragraph 0289, lines 1-4, paragraphs 0290-0291, paragraph 0292, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, KIM further teaches the device wherein the battery statistic data comprise a daily log data recording an activity history of each of the background applications (paragraph 0032, lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of KIM with Gargash further teaches the device, wherein at a timing of receiving the unexpected wake-up event (Gargash, paragraph 0005, lines 19-20, paragraph 0292, lines 2-4), according to the battery statistic data (KIM, FIG. 2, 206), the battery data collection and analysis module identifies a plurality of target applications (KIM, FIG. 2, 208, FIG. 7, APP-1-APP-6) that have woken up a system from the background applications and records the target applications in the analysis result (recorded predetermined number of APPs which are ranked according to their corresponding wake-up activity during the sleep mode, presented as percentage – KIM, FIG. 7, APP-1-APP-6, paragraph 0060).
Regarding claims 1-4, the combination of KIM and Gargash discloses a method with all claim limitations, as addressed above for claims 6-9.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) for claim 5
Claim 5 recites the following contingent limitations: “removing the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background” and “enabling the target applications that are not in the app standby mode to enter the app standby mode”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The limitation “removing the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background” only needs to be performed if the determined target application is in an app standby mode, and limitation “enabling the target applications that are not in the app standby mode to enter the app standby mode” only needs to be performed if the determined target application is not in an app standby mode. These conditions are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of “removing the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background” and “enabling the target applications that are not in the app standby mode to enter the app standby mode” can be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 5 requires the limitation of “determining whether each of the target applications is in an app standby mode” and only one of either “removing the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background” or “enabling the target applications that are not in the app standby mode to enter the app standby mode”.
Based on the above, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0143568 in view of Gargash et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0227583, and further in view of Choi et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0032368.
Regarding claim 5, KIM and Gargash disclose the method, as per claim 4.
KIM an Gargash do not specifically state determining whether each of the target applications is in an app standby mode and removing the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background.
Choi teaches automatically ending (i.e. removing from memory) background apps which are in “standby state” (cashed state) if no user selection is inputted for a specific time while the app is in the standby state (paragraph 0110, lines 1-3, lines 7-11). Choi also teaches identifying/determining which of the apps are/maintained in an app standby state in order to either switch such app(s) to the foreground (i.e. transitioning from app standby state to foreground) or ending/removing the app(s) which are maintained in the app standby state when no user input is received as explained above (paragraph 0110, lines 1-11). Thus, reducing the power consumption (paragraphs 0005-0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above described functionality, as suggested by Choi with the method disclosed by KIM and Gargash in order to implement determining whether each of the target applications is in an app standby mode and removing the target applications that are in the app standby mode from the background. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the power consumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN STOYNOV whose telephone number is (571)272-4236. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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 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.
/STEFAN STOYNOV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights