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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Certified copies have been electronically received, certified 10/21/2024.
This application is a continuation of International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2022/129666, filed 12/16/2022, and claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210241673.0, filed 03/11/2022. The priority date is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/22/2025 and 8/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures, and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may also apply. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin et al. (US 20090064195 A1) hereafter Chin in view of Yen et al. (US 20240361821 A1) hereafter Yen.
Regarding claim 1, Chin teaches:
detecting a working mode state of the first system (Paragraph 46; “the EC first checks if the first operating system operates in a work mode (step S330).”);
adjusting a working mode state of the second system to be the same as that of the first system (Paragraph 64; “In the step S630, if the EC determines that the second operating system operates in the work mode, the EC forwards the information adjusting message to the second operating system, so as to provide the adjusted information to the second operating system (step S640). The second operating system synchronizes the information recorded therein according to the information adjusting message (step S650).”, where the second operating system synchronizes with the first operating system, thereby adjusting its working mode state to be the same as that of the first system.);
wherein in the first mode, both the first system and the second system are in operation, and an interface display is only performed by the first system (Paragraph 70; “the EC checks if the second operating system operates in the work mode (step S740). In detail, when using the first operating system, the second operating system may be in a sleep, a hibernate, or even a power off mode, so the EC must make sure that the second operating system operates in the work mode before executing the information synchronization.”, where the first system is in operation and active, whereas the second system is in operation and in a sleep or hibernate state, thereby the display is only performed by the first system.);
and in the second mode, both the first system and the second system are in operation, and the interface display is performed by either the first system or the second system (Paragraph 72; “if the EC determines that the second operating system does not operate in the work mode, the EC takes no action for a moment (step S770), and waits for the second operating system to restore the work mode.”, where the restoration of work mode awakens the second operating system, thereby allowing the second system to perform an interface display. Because the first operating system is not updated, the first operating system continues to have an interface display.).
Chin does not teach an explicit distinction between a first operation mode or a second operation mode.
However, Yen teaches:
a first operation mode or a second operation mode (Paragraphs 68-70; “electronic device 400 may be operated in the third power state at stage 3. In an example third power state, electronic device 400 may be switched to a modern standby mode from the hibernated mode.”, where the three power states correspond to three different operation modes, the first and second power states corresponding to the first and second operation modes respectively.);
a change in the working mode state (Paragraphs 68-69; “When the monitored distance is greater than first threshold 502 (e.g., distance ≥45 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the first power state”, and “When the monitored distance is between first threshold 502 (e.g., 45 meters) and second threshold 504 (e.g., 5 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the second power state”, which teaches changing working modes i.e. working, power saving, and hibernating.).
Chin and Yen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chin to incorporate the teachings of Yen and have multiple operation modes, and further synchronize the working mode state of the first and second systems in the synchronization framework of Chin with the known working mode transitions of Yen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire to maintain consistent operating states between the systems, yielding the predictable result of reducing unnecessary power consumption and improving system coordination.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, additionally reciting an electronic device, being capable of running a first system and a second system, comprising a memory and a processor, and the memory storing a computer program, wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the processor is enabled to implement operations. Chin teaches:
an electronic device, being capable of running a first system and a second system (Paragraph 43; “Referring to FIG. 3, this embodiment is applicable to an electronic device (e.g., the dual-operating system device 100 in the above embodiment)”).
Yen teaches:
a memory and a processor, and the memory storing a computer program, wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the processor is enabled to implement operations (Paragraph 40; “Processor 302 may be any type of central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, or processing logic that interprets and executes machine-readable instructions stored in machine-readable storage medium 304.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a memory storing instructions executable by a processor because this is a well-known computing architecture for implementing software functions. Applying such an arrangement would yield the predictable result of enabling the processor to perform the recited operations by executing instructions in memory.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when being executed by a processor, is configured to implement operations. Chin teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when being executed by a processor, is configured to implement operations (Paragraph 40 and 44; “Processor 302 may be any type of central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, or processing logic that interprets and executes machine-readable instructions stored in machine-readable storage medium 304.”, “FIG. 3B is a block diagram of example electronic device 300 of FIG. 3A including non-transitory machine-readable storage medium 304, storing instructions to perform additional features.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor because this is a well-known computing architecture for implementing software functions. Applying such an arrangement would yield the predictable result of enabling the processor to perform the recited operations by executing instructions in a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 1. Chin teaches:
detecting the working mode state of the second system (Paragraph 63; “The EC checks if the second operating system operates in the work mode (step S630). In detail, when using the first operating system, the second operating system may be in a sleep, a hibernate, or even a power off mode, so the EC must determine whether the second operating system operates in the work mode before executing the information synchronization.”);
a mode in which only the second system is in operation (Paragraph 46; “After receiving the information requesting message, the EC first checks if the first operating system operates in a work mode (step S330). In detail, before the electronic device switches to the second operating system, the first operating system may enter a sleep, a hibernate, or even a power off mode, and thus the EC must confirm that the first operating system operates in the work mode, so as to obtain the correct information.”, where when the first system is in a power off state, it leaves only the second system in operation.);
recording corresponding associated state data (Paragraph 64; “The second operating system synchronizes the information recorded therein according to the information adjusting message (step S650). In detail, in addition to a command requiring the second operating system to execute the synchronization, the information adjusting message also includes a content of the information to be adjusted, such as the brightness value or volume value to be adjusted.”, which forwards an information adjusting message including the adjusted brightness and volume, in which the system synchronizes its recorded information according to the received message. Synchronizing and updating stored settings corresponds to recording associated state data because the stored operating settings represent state information associated with the operating system.);
Yen teaches:
a third operation mode (Paragraph 70; “electronic device 400 may be operated in the third power state at stage 3.”);
a change in the working mode state (Paragraphs 68-69; “When the monitored distance is greater than first threshold 502 (e.g., distance ≥45 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the first power state”, and “When the monitored distance is between first threshold 502 (e.g., 45 meters) and second threshold 504 (e.g., 5 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the second power state”, which teaches changing working modes i.e. working, power saving, and hibernating.).
wherein the associated state data comprises a changed working mode state (Paragraphs 68-70; “When the monitored distance is greater than first threshold 502 (e.g., distance ≥45 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the first power state”, and “When the monitored distance is between first threshold 502 (e.g., 45 meters) and second threshold 504 (e.g., 5 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the second power state”, which teaches changing working modes i.e. working, power saving, and hibernating.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the known changed working mode state of Yen with the synchronized state information of Chin, yielding the predictable result of maintaining consistent operating states between the systems. It would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Chin disclosing synchronizing operating settings (Paragraphs 56-58) with Yen teaching changing working mode states (Paragraphs 68-70) and include the working mode state among the synchronized state information of Chin such that the operating systems maintain consistent states during switching, yielding the predictable result of maintaining consistency between context switches. Chin recognizes that the first and second systems must synchronize their information. Since either operating system may become the currently used operating system, as disclosed in Paragraph 56, “the currently used operating system is switched from the first operating system to the second operating system (step S510)”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the disclosed synchronization step in both directions such that either system maintains updated state information when control is transferred.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as those of claim 4. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 4. Chin teaches:
sending the associated state data to the first system (Paragraph 65; “Otherwise, in the step S630, if the EC determines that the second operating system does not operate in the work mode, the EC forces the second operating system to restore the work mode (step S660). Similarly, the EC sends the information adjusting message to the second operating system, so as to provide the adjusted information to the second operating system (step S640). The second operating system may synchronize the information recorded therein according to the information adjusting message (step S650)”, in which the first system sends associated state data to the second system. Chin recognizes that the first and second systems must synchronize their information. Since either operating system may become the currently used operating system, as disclosed in Paragraph 56, “the currently used operating system is switched from the first operating system to the second operating system (step S510)”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the disclosed synchronization step in both directions such that either system maintains updated state information when control is transferred.).
Yen teaches:
a plurality of operating modes (Paragraphs 68-70; “When the monitored distance is greater than first threshold 502 (e.g., distance ≥45 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the first power state”, and “When the monitored distance is between first threshold 502 (e.g., 45 meters) and second threshold 504 (e.g., 5 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the second power state”, which teaches changing working modes i.e. working, power saving, and hibernating.);
switching operating modes (Paragraphs 68-69; “When the monitored distance is greater than first threshold 502 (e.g., distance ≥45 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the first power state”, and “When the monitored distance is between first threshold 502 (e.g., 45 meters) and second threshold 504 (e.g., 5 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the second power state”, which teaches changing working modes i.e. working, power saving, and hibernating.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the known changed working mode state of Yen with the synchronized state information of Chin, yielding the predictable result of maintaining consistent operating states between the systems. It would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Chin disclosing synchronizing operating settings (Paragraphs 56-58) with Yen teaching changing working mode states (Paragraphs 68-70) and include the working mode state among the synchronized state information of Chin such that the operating systems maintain consistent states during switching, yielding the predictable result of maintaining consistency between context switches, thus adjusting the working mode state of the first system to be the same as the changed working mode state of the second.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as those of claim 5. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 5. Yen teaches:
wherein a power consumption of the first operation mode is greater than that of the second operation mode, and a power consumption of the second operation mode is greater than that of the third operation mode (Paragraphs 68-70; “electronic device 400 may be operated in the third power state at stage 3. In an example third power state, electronic device 400 may be switched to a modern standby mode from the hibernated mode.”, explicitly discloses multiple power states associated with operation modes (see stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 operation modes)).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as those of claim 8. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 8.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Anna et al. (US 20080126522 A1) hereafter Anna.
Regarding claim 2, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 1. Chin teaches:
detecting the working mode state of the first system and the working mode state of the second system, respectively (Paragraphs 45-46; “the second operating system sends an information requesting message to the EC (step S320)” and “After receiving the information requesting message, the EC first checks if the first operating system operates in a work mode (step S330)” explicitly determines the working mode state of the first system. The second OS being currently operating and requesting information indicates its current operational state. Additionally, Paragraph 63 further discloses “The EC checks if the second operating system operates in the work mode (step S630)”.);
determining, in response to the change in the working mode state of the first system, information when the working mode state of the first system is changed (Paragraph 46; “After receiving the information requesting message, the EC first checks if the first operating system operates in a work mode”, and further explains that the first OS may have changed states before the switch, “the first operating system may enter a sleep, a hibernate, or even a power off mode, and thus the EC must confirm that the first operating system operates in the work mode”. Therefore, it discloses determining information associated with the first operating system in response to changes in the working mode state of the first operating system, including changes between work mode, sleep, hibernate, and power off modes.);
Yen teaches:
the second operation mode (Paragraph 69; “When the monitored distance is between first threshold 502 (e.g., 45 meters) and second threshold 504 (e.g., 5 meters), electronic device 400 may be operated in the second power state at stage 2”);
Chin in view of Yen does not teach a first or a second timestamp.
However, Anna teaches:
a first or a second timestamp (Paragraph 34; “a timestamp of the received vital product data 81 to a timestamp of the corresponding vital product data stored 86 as stored by the receiving computer processor subsystem 31. In step 85, the received timestamp "ABC" is more recent than the stored timestamp "000". Thus, computer processor subsystem 31, in step 87, updates the stored vital product data 86 with the received vital product data 81. If the timestamps are the same, or the received timestamp is earlier than the stored timestamp, the computer processor subsystem 31 maintains the stored vital product data.”);
synchronizing, based on the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Paragraph 21; “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, it is important that vital product data 20 for each of the clusters 30, 31, 32, shown as vital product data 40, 41, 42, be synchronized between the clusters in order for the clusters to interact correctly in order to provide a high availability environment.”, and Paragraph 32; “computer processor subsystem 30 determines that none of the computer processor subsystems is an authoritative reference for the Domain Name, and compares, in step 80, a timestamp of the received vital product data 81 to a timestamp of that vital product data 82 as stored by the receiving computer processor subsystem 30”, where timestamps are considered as vital product data that is synchronized on, the vital product data corresponding to the states of the systems.).
Chin, Yen, and Anna are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of system synchronization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chin in view of Yen to incorporate the teachings of Anna and synchronize the systems based on the first and second timestamps. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized timestamp-based synchronization as a known technique for determining the relative recency of state information and ensuring that multiple systems maintain consistent and up-to-date information. Applying such a technique on the synchronization process of Chin in view of Yen would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the latest state information and reducing inconsistencies between the first and second systems.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as those of claim 2. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as those of claim 2. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Anna, further in view of Karmarkar et al. (US 20190243688 A1) hereafter Karmarkar.
Regarding claim 3, Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Anna teach the method of claim 2. Chin teaches:
adjusting the working mode state of a system to be the same as a working mode state of another system (Paragraph 64; “In the step S630, if the EC determines that the second operating system operates in the work mode, the EC forwards the information adjusting message to the second operating system, so as to provide the adjusted information to the second operating system (step S640). The second operating system synchronizes the information recorded therein according to the information adjusting message (step S650).”, where the second operating system synchronizes with the first operating system, thereby adjusting its working mode state to be the same as that of the first system).
Anna teaches:
the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Paragraph 34; “a timestamp of the received vital product data 81 to a timestamp of the corresponding vital product data stored 86 as stored by the receiving computer processor subsystem 31. In step 85, the received timestamp "ABC" is more recent than the stored timestamp "000". Thus, computer processor subsystem 31, in step 87, updates the stored vital product data 86 with the received vital product data 81. If the timestamps are the same, or the received timestamp is earlier than the stored timestamp, the computer processor subsystem 31 maintains the stored vital product data.”).
Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Anna does not teach a later timestamp among the first timestamp and the second timestamp.
However, Karmarkar teaches:
using a later timestamp among the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Paragraph 307; “determining from the comparison that an object listed in both the first and second listings has a timestamp that changed between the first and second snapshots, the object listed in the first listing having an earlier timestamp, and the object listed in the second listing having a later timestamp; and upon the determination, generating the first task, the first task comprising an instruction to copy the object with the later timestamp to the destination site, and the second task comprising an instruction to delete the object with the earlier timestamp from the destination site.”).
Chin, Yen, Anna, and Karmarkar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of system synchronization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Anna to incorporate the teachings of Karmarkar and adjust the working mode state of the system with the earlier timestamp to be the same as the working mode state of the system with the later timestamp because timestamp-based synchronization is a known method for identifying the most current state information and ensuring that systems maintain consistent operating states. Applying such a technique to the synchronization process of Chin in view of Yen further in view of Anna would have yielded the predictable result of updating a stale working mode state with a most recent working mode state, thereby reducing inconsistencies between the first and second systems.
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as those of claim 3. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Peterson et al. (US 20140337607 A1) hereafter Peterson.
Regarding claim 6, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 5. Chin teaches:
the associated state data (Paragraph 67; “The first operating system and the second operating system are, for example, a combination of the Windows OS and the Windows mobile OS, and the synchronized information is system information such as time information, brightness information, or volume information. The method for synchronizing information of the present invention includes the following steps.”);
adjusting, in response to the associated state data comprising the first screen brightness, a screen brightness corresponding to the first system to the first screen brightness (Paragraph 64; “in addition to a command requiring the second operating system to execute the synchronization, the information adjusting message also includes a content of the information to be adjusted, such as the brightness value”. Chin recognizes that the first and second systems must synchronize their information. Since either operating system may become the currently used operating system, as disclosed in Paragraph 56, “the currently used operating system is switched from the first operating system to the second operating system (step S510)”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the disclosed synchronization step in both directions such that either system maintains updated state information when control is transferred.).
Chin in view of Yen does not teach a silent mode state and a vibration mode state.
However, Peterson teaches:
a silent mode state and a vibration mode state (Paragraph 52; “sound settings may include a silent mode, a vibration only mode”).
Chin, Yen, and Peterson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of system synchronization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chin in view of Yen to incorporate the teachings of Peterson and have adjusted each respective parameter of the first system based on the state data comprising a brightness, silent mode state, and vibration mode state because synchronizing device settings based on corresponding state information is a known method for maintaining consistent configurations across systems. Applying such a technique to the synchronization process of Chin in view of Yen would have yielded the predictable result of synchronizing additional operating parameters of the first system to maintain consistent device behavior.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as those of claim 6. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 5. Chin teaches:
the associated state data (Paragraph 67; “The first operating system and the second operating system are, for example, a combination of the Windows OS and the Windows mobile OS, and the synchronized information is system information such as time information, brightness information, or volume information. The method for synchronizing information of the present invention includes the following steps.”);
the working mode state entering a disabled state (Paragraph 46; “before the electronic device switches to the second operating system, the first operating system may enter a sleep, a hibernate, or even a power off mode”, where the first OS begins in a working state and may enter a power off mode, corresponding to a disabled state.);
adjusting, in response to the associated state data comprising the second screen brightness, screen brightness of the first system and the second system to the second screen brightness (Paragraph 64; “in addition to a command requiring the second operating system to execute the synchronization, the information adjusting message also includes a content of the information to be adjusted, such as the brightness value”. Chin recognizes that the first and second systems must synchronize their information. Since either operating system may become the currently used operating system, as disclosed in Paragraph 56, “the currently used operating system is switched from the first operating system to the second operating system (step S510)”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the disclosed synchronization step in both directions such that either system maintains updated state information when control is transferred.).
Chin in view of Yen does not teach a silent mode state and a vibration mode state.
However, Peterson teaches:
a silent mode state and a vibration mode state (Paragraph 52; “sound settings may include a silent mode, a vibration only mode”).
Chin, Yen, and Peterson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of system synchronization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Anna, further in view of Karmarkar to incorporate the teachings of Peterson and have adjusted each respective parameter of the first system based on the state data comprising a brightness, silent mode state, and vibration mode state because synchronizing device settings based on corresponding state information is a known method for maintaining consistent configurations across systems. Applying such a technique to the synchronization process of Chin in view of Yen further in view of Anna further in view of Karmarkar would have yielded the predictable result of synchronizing additional operating parameters of the second system to maintain consistent device behavior.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as those of claim 7. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 7.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin in view of Yen, further in view of Kanigicherla et al. (US 20140032810 A1) hereafter Kanigicherla.
Regarding claim 9, Chin in view of Yen teach the method of claim 1. Chin in view of Yen does not teach wherein the electronic device comprises a first processor corresponding to the first system and a second processor corresponding to the second system, the first processor is a core processor.
However, Kanigicherla teaches:
wherein the electronic device comprises a first processor corresponding to the first system and a second processor corresponding to the second system, the first processor is a core processor (Paragraph 33; “a first operating system 124, referred to as OS-A, running on the first processor 102 may be designated as the primary operating system while a second operating system 126, referred to as OS-B, running on the second processor 104 is treated as the secondary operating system.”, the first processor corresponding to the core processor running the primary system, and the second processor running the second system.).
Chin, Yen, and Kanigicherla are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of system synchronization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chin in view of Yen to incorporate the teachings of Kanigicherla and have the electronic device comprise a first processor corresponding to the first system and a second processor corresponding to the second system, where the first processor is a core processor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized assignment of system functions to multiple processors, including a core processor, is a known architecture for improving system management and task coordination. Applying such a processor arrangement to the system of Chin in view of Yen would have yielded the predictable result of enabling the synchronized operation of the first and second systems while efficiently distributing processing responsibilities between the processors.
Claim 18 recites similar limitations as those of claim 9. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okamoto et al. (US 20040039950 A1) discusses an embedded controller (EC) first starts an operating system which is function limited but short in starting time on a first system having a CPU. After that, upon receiving a request to use multifunctional software, the EC starts an operating system which is multifunctional but long in starting time on a second system having a CPU, thus switching between the operating systems to allow selective use thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 4:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. PT, F 4:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/KENNETH P TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights