DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 filed September 9th 2024 are pending in the current 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De La Cropte De Chanterac et al. (US2016/0064940) (hereinafter referred to as Chanterac)
Consider claim 1, where Chanterac discloses an apparatus for wireless communications, (See Chanterac Fig. 8 and ¶63, 65 where device 2000 comprises radio frequency circuitry 2008 used to send and receive information over a wireless link or network to one or more other devices and includes well-known circuitry for performing this function.) comprising: a memory comprising instructions; (See Chanterac Fig. 8 and ¶66 where medium 2001 can include a memory hierarchy, including but not limited to cache, main memory and secondary memory. ) and a first processing system configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: detect a power-intensive activity at a second processing system of a wireless device; (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where Peak power manager 300 may receive power requests from one or more modules, such as Wi-Fi 304) and signal a third processing system, in response to the detection, to take action to manage peak power draw of the wireless device. (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where The peak power manager 300 may assign/modify budgets for the one or more modules, and accept, deny, or revoke the power requests received from the modules. Each module 304, 306, 308, 310, 316, and 318 may receive its assigned budget from the peak power manager 300.)
Consider claim 2, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first processing system comprises the second processing system. (See Chanterac Fig. 8 and ¶79 where one or more processors 2018, and memory controller 2020 may be implemented on a single chip)
Consider claim 3, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wireless device comprises at least one of: an augmented reality (AR) viewer, a wearable device, or an Internet of Things (IoT) device. (See Chanterac ¶5 where an electronic device may be any electronic device such as a desktop computer, portable multifunction device (e.g., a smartphone), wearable device, tablet computer, etc.)
Consider claim 4, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the second processing system or the third processing system comprises: an application processor; a wireless connectivity processor; or a graphics processor. (See Chanterac Fig. 8 and ¶67 where the software components can include operating system 2022, communication module (or set of instructions) 2024, touch processing module (or set of instructions) 2026, graphics module (or set of instructions) 2028, and one or more applications (or set of instructions) 2030.)
Consider claim 5, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: one of the second processing system or the third processing system comprises an application processor; and the other of the second processing system or the third processing system comprises a wireless connectivity processor. (See Chanterac Fig. 8 and ¶67 where the software components can include operating system 2022, communication module (or set of instructions) 2024, touch processing module (or set of instructions) 2026, graphics module (or set of instructions) 2028, and one or more applications (or set of instructions) 2030.)
Consider claim 6, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the power-intensive activity involves at least one of: memory access; multimedia processing; or wireless transmission. (See Chanterac Fig. 8 and ¶67 where the software components can include operating system 2022, communication module (or set of instructions) 2024, touch processing module (or set of instructions) 2026, graphics module (or set of instructions) 2028, and one or more applications (or set of instructions) 2030.)
7. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring current draw on a battery of the wireless device; and signaling at least one of the second processing system or the third processing system when the current draw is equal to or exceeds a threshold value. (See Chanterac ¶29 where the electronic device may include a power supply (e.g., a battery). A first characteristic of the power supply (e.g., a voltage level, a charge level of a battery, etc.) may be obtained, and it may be determined that the first characteristic is lower than a first threshold (e.g., a UVLO threshold or threshold higher than the UVLO threshold). The first power budget may be assigned to the first module based on the determination that the first characteristic is lower than the first threshold (e.g., assigning a relatively lower power budget and/or reducing a power budget because the first characteristic is lower than the first threshold)
Consider claim 8, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the threshold value is set based on a target power envelope associated with one or more power-intensive activities occurring concurrently on the second processing system and the third processing system. (See Chanterac ¶30-31 where a budget may be assigned to the first module requesting power, and/or a second module may have a budget assigned/adjusted/revoked in response to the first module requesting power (e.g., if the second module's budget needs to be lowered or revoked to accommodate the first module's power draw). power budgets may be adjusted in response to changes in battery level (e.g., one or more budgets may be reduced in response to a battery level falling beneath a threshold level),)
Consider claim 9, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein each of the second processing system and the third processing system is configured with one or more power budgets based on the concurrency of the one or more power-intensive activities. (See Chanterac ¶43 where it may be important to assign budgets in such a way that Wi-Fi and media play back can happen concurrently (e.g., both modules may be assigned high priorities and other modules may receive relatively low budgets as a result).)
Consider claim 10, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein signaling the third processing system comprises signaling an indication of a power budget. (See Chanterac ¶30-31 where a budget may be assigned to the first module requesting power, and/or a second module may have a budget assigned/adjusted/revoked in response to the first module requesting power (e.g., if the second module's budget needs to be lowered or revoked to accommodate the first module's power draw). power budgets may be adjusted in response to changes in battery level (e.g., one or more budgets may be reduced in response to a battery level falling beneath a threshold level),)
Consider claim 13, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the third processing system is configured to pause one or more of its activities in response to the signaling indicating the power-intensive activity at the second processing system. (See Chanterac ¶34 where in some examples, modifying the state may include preventing the first module from drawing power for a predefined period of time (e.g., stopping the Wi-Fi radio for 20-40 ms, or some other time period long enough for a peak current to cease, among other possibilities). In some examples, modifying the state may include changing a mode of the first module for a predefined period of time (e.g., throttling the CPU clock, reducing a core voltage of the CPU, and disabling one or more features of a sensor, among other possibilities)
Consider claim 15, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the third processing system is configured to throttle one or more of its activities in response to the signaling indicating the power-intensive activity at the second processing system. (See Chanterac ¶34 where in some examples, modifying the state may include changing a mode of the first module for a predefined period of time (e.g., throttling the CPU clock, reducing a core voltage of the CPU, and disabling one or more features of a sensor, among other possibilities)
Consider claim 16, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the throttling is based on an overall power budget of the wireless device. (See Chanterac ¶81 where assigning the first power budget to the first module may be based on a charge level of a battery of the electronic device. The method may further include: obtaining a first characteristic of the power supply; and determining that the first characteristic is lower than a first threshold; wherein the first power budget may be assigned to the first module based on the determination that the first characteristic is lower than the first threshold)
Consider claim 17, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the power budget is set based on a programmable policy associated with a use case. (See Chanterac ¶81 where the first priority may be assigned based on the determination that the first power request is associated with a user-initiated task)
Consider claim 18, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first processing system is further configured to: obtain signaling from the third processing system indicating a power-intensive activity at the second processing system; and trigger the second processing system, in response to the signaling from the third processing system, to manage the peak power draw of the wireless device. (See Chanterac Fig. 1 and ¶34, 43 where many applications stream media (e.g., audio or video) over Wi-Fi and play back the media over a speaker. Accordingly, it may be important to assign budgets in such a way that Wi-Fi and media play back can happen concurrently (e.g., both modules may be assigned high priorities and other modules may receive relatively low budgets as a result).)
Consider claim 19, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one transceiver, wherein: at least one of the power-intensive activity at a first processing system or an action taken at the second processing system to manage peak power draw of the wireless device involves wireless transmission via the least one transceiver; (See Chanterac ¶34 where in some examples, modifying the state may include preventing the first module from drawing power for a predefined period of time (e.g., stopping the Wi-Fi radio for 20-40 ms, or some other time period long enough for a peak current to cease, among other possibilities).) and the apparatus is configured an augmented reality (AR) viewer, a wearable device, or an Internet of Things (IoT) device. (See Chanterac ¶5 where an electronic device may be any electronic device such as a desktop computer, portable multifunction device (e.g., a smartphone), wearable device, tablet computer, etc.)
Consider claim 20, where Chanterac discloses a method for managing power at a wireless device, comprising: detecting a power-intensive activity at a first processing system of the wireless device; (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where Peak power manager 300 may receive power requests from one or more modules, such as Wi-Fi 304) and signaling a second processing system, in response to the detection, to take action to manage peak power draw of the wireless device. (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where The peak power manager 300 may assign/modify budgets for the one or more modules, and accept, deny, or revoke the power requests received from the modules. Each module 304, 306, 308, 310, 316, and 318 may receive its assigned budget from the peak power manager 300.)
Consider claim 21, where Chanterac discloses an apparatus, comprising: means for detecting a power-intensive activity at a first processing system of a wireless device; (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where Peak power manager 300 may receive power requests from one or more modules, such as Wi-Fi 304) and means for signaling a second processing system, in response to the detection, to take action to manage peak power draw of the wireless device. (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where The peak power manager 300 may assign/modify budgets for the one or more modules, and accept, deny, or revoke the power requests received from the modules. Each module 304, 306, 308, 310, 316, and 318 may receive its assigned budget from the peak power manager 300.)
Consider claim 22, where Chanterac discloses a computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon for: detecting a power-intensive activity at a first processing system of a wireless device; (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where Peak power manager 300 may receive power requests from one or more modules, such as Wi-Fi 304) and signaling a second processing system, in response to the detection, to take action to manage peak power draw of the wireless device. (See Chanterac Fig. 3 and ¶37-40 where The peak power manager 300 may assign/modify budgets for the one or more modules, and accept, deny, or revoke the power requests received from the modules. Each module 304, 306, 308, 310, 316, and 318 may receive its assigned budget from the peak power manager 300.)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanterac as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yan et al. (US2019/0108043)
Consider claim 11, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, Chanterac does not explicitly teach wherein the signaling comprises at least one of: signaling via one or more general purpose input/outputs (GPIOs); and signaling via a data path interface. However in an analogous field of endeavor Yan teaches signaling via one or more general purpose input/outputs (GPIOs); (See Yan ¶68 where firmware instructions (e.g., via general-purpose IO (GPIO)) may cause a wake event for SCR, which may wake state machine 600 from the ultra-low power mode ) and signaling via a data path interface (See Yan ¶67 where firmware instructions (e.g., via interface 290, such as SPI or 2C commands) may cause power-gating of the power domain of the SCR circuitry) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power states of Chanterac (See Chanterac ¶49) using known signaling pathways in the art as taught by Yan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known methods of communication for the purposes of communicating.
Consider claim 12, where Chanterac in view of Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the data path interface is at least one of: dedicated for signaling the detection of power intensive activity; (See Yan ¶71 where If firmware wants to wake up the interconnect for future programming, it may do so through a dedicated general-purpose I/O (GPIO) connection to a ULPM_WAKE IO pin of the interconnect, which may transition the interconnect from the ULPM to the LPM.) or also used to exchange other types of signaling between the first and second processing systems. (See Yan ¶36 where An interface 290 may also extend between configuration portion 250 (and/or power kernel and controller 270) at one end, and active smart interconnect portion 210 (and/or MCU or BLE 220) at another end. In comparison with system 100, a firmware of system 200 may dynamically update configurations of system 200 via interface 290, such as through SPI commands, I2C commands, or other commands.)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanterac as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lohmar et al. (US2020/0359395)
Consider claim 14, where Chanterac discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the pausing is subject to predefined period (See Chanterac ¶34 where in some examples, modifying the state may include preventing the first module from drawing power for a predefined period of time (e.g., stopping the Wi-Fi radio for 20-40 ms, or some other time period long enough for a peak current to cease, among other possibilities).) however, Chanterac does not explicitly teach a configurable delay limit. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Lohmar teaches a configurable delay limit. (See Lohmar ¶2, 82 where the framework allows usage of IMS based media and also non-IMS based media streams for uplink. The enabler allows for configurable delay constraints. The RAN scheduler is considering the current channel condition to that device and also the maximal delay of packets. Packets, which are close to the due date (max delay) get a higher priority than packets, which have just arrived at the RAN scheduler.) therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the stopping of the Wi-Fi of Chanterac would be subject to a maximal delay of packets as taught by Lohmar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of adhering to known Quality of Service protocols to ensure the data being sent is not stale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights