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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
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) 1-2, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedarat et al PN 2009/0282277 in view of Chapman et al PN 6,594,774.
In regards to claims 1, 8, 13: Sedarat et al teaches a wake-up method ([0005] “When the transceiver becomes inactive due to having no data to transmit at time T1, the power for the transceiver is turned off to a minimal level and the transceiver enters low-power idle mode. However, the power is periodically turned back on during low-power idle mode for two purposes: 1) to maintain the proper states of near-end and far-end receivers in the transceiver and connected transceivers, such as updating filters and maintaining timing lock, so that the transceivers can return to active operation more quickly, and 2) to be able to detect reception of a transition bit sent by a far-end transceiver, the transition bit requesting the local transceiver to transition back to the nominal full-power mode of 10G operation. Thus, after a predetermined number of time intervals (i.e., frames), power is brought back on at time T2 and kept on for a predetermined number of frames, and is then returned to its minimal level at time T3 for a number of frames. The interval of minimal power level can be considered a quiet interval N during which power is off, followed by a refresh interval M during which power is temporarily brought back on (the interval N+M being the refresh period). This sequence of quiet and refresh intervals is repeated until a transition bit is detected during a refresh interval, such as at time T4, at which point the power is maintained at the fully-on level and the transceiver is transitioned back to full power mode”), (T2 = k-1, T3 = k+1) applied to an electronic device , wherein the method comprises: starting, by the electronic device, timing (predetermined number of time intervals “Thus, after a predetermined number of time intervals (i.e., frames)”); obtaining suspend duration (the predetermined number of time intervals) if a working state of the electronic device is a suspend state (“low power mode”) when timing duration reaches a preset refresh period (Time T2), wherein the suspend duration is a difference between a moment at which the electronic device enters the suspend state(T2 is different from T1) and a timing refresh moment ( T2), and the timing refresh moment is a moment at which the timing duration reaches the preset refresh period (refresh interval M); and triggering, by the electronic device if the suspend duration is greater than or equal to a first preset threshold (equal to a threshold at time T2), an wakeup operation of the system. Sedarat et al teaches a wake up event instead of a rebooting. Chapman et al teaches a wake-up method (Column 5 line 53 et. seq. “Checkup thread 164 wakes up at regular or irregular intervals to check on the operational status (the "health") of the objects in the system. If any problems are detected, then checkup thread 164 wakes up recovery thread 170 to initiate the appropriate recovery action(s). Checkup thread 164 also refreshes (writes to) watchdog logic 110 of FIG. 1 each time it wakes up in order to keep the system from being rebooted. In the illustrated example, checkup thread 164 is a "time-critical" priority thread so that other threads (except for possibly other time-critical threads) cannot block it, allowing it to run to completion”), applied to an electronic device (figure 1), wherein the method comprises: starting, by the electronic device, timing (watchdog logic); obtaining suspend duration (watchdog logic counter Column 4 line 13 et. seq. “The programmed value for counter 122 is programmed by software (e.g., operating system 118) when system 100 is initialized. Alternatively, the programmed value for counter 122 may be hard-coded into logic 110 (e.g., using a ROM). Additionally, it is to be appreciated that watchdog logic 110 can be implemented in different manners, such as using a count-up rather than a count-down counter”) if a working state of the application is a suspend state (sleep) when timing duration reaches a preset refresh period (the period for the watchdog counter to be refreshed. Column 2 line 25 et. seq. “The critical process monitor refreshes the watchdog logic regularly to avoid having the computer system rebooted”), wherein the suspend duration is a difference between a moment at which the application enters the suspend state (sleep state) and a timing refresh moment (watchdog refresh), and the timing refresh moment is a moment at which the timing duration reaches the preset refresh period (interval); and triggering, by the electronic device if the suspend duration is greater than (then if the watchdog times out after not being refreshed) or equal to a first preset threshold, an operation of rebooting a system (reboot “the electronic device enters the suspend state”). Chapman et al teaches an application enters a suspend/sleep state as opposed to “the electronic device enters the suspend state”. It would have been obvious to reboot Sedarat et al’s system if the system failed to wake at the scheduled time because this would have prevented system crashes. Chapman et al teaches writing to the register of the watchdog when it is woken up to refresh.
In regards to claims 2, 9: Chapman et al teaches two thresholds the time to wakeup and the time to reboot if it did not refresh the timer before the watchdog timed out. Chapman teaches a first threshold the difference between the moment the watchdog is refreshed by performing a writing to the watchdog and the reboot and a second threshold when the refresh period expires to wake up and write to the watchdog to prevent it from timing out causing rebooting.
In regards to claims 12, 21: both Chapman et al and Serarat et al teach the low power suspend/sleep state.
In regards to claim 15: Chapman et al teaches waking up if greater than a refresh/second threshold (the refresh time) and less than a reboot/first threshold.
Claim(s) 3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al PN 6,594,774 in view of Sedarat et al PN 2009/0282277 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dessard et al PN 2024/0235384.
In regards to claims 3, 16: Chapman et al teaches the watchdog timeout period is longer than the time to wake to refresh the counter but does not state that the difference between the wakeup period and the watchdog timeout is greater than the refresh period. Sedarat et al teaches the refresh period is two frame time intervals. Dessard et al teaches ([0050] “ If no data change nor refresh is detected by 138 during a time period equivalent to several refresh clock period, a Reset signal is automatically generated in latch circuit 140. This is a watchdog feature.”). It would have been obvious to have the difference between the wakeup and the reset be “several refresh clock periods” because this would have prevented erroneous rebooting/resetting when the refresh wake is a little late or slow.
Claim(s) 4-5, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al PN 6,594,774 in view of Sedarat et al PN 2009/0282277 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen PN 2016/0278014.
In regards to claims 4, 17: Chapman et al teaches a processor 102 executing applications (114,116) thus an application processor. As well as receiving the duration of the suspend/sleep state until the refresh wake. Chapman et al also teaches sensors 306 but does not expressly teach a sensor hub. Chen teaches an application processor in communication with a sensor hub indicating that the processor is to enter the sleep state ([0012] “receiving and temporarily storing, by a sensor hub after receiving the indication indicating that the processor is to enter the sleep state, the sensor data collected and reported by the sensor”). It would have been obvious to have been obvious to have the low power module be a sensor hub because sensor hubs are common in mobile devices such as cell phones
In regards to claims 5, 18: Chen teaches ([0012] “receiving and temporarily storing, by a sensor hub after receiving the indication indicating that the processor is to enter the sleep state, the sensor data collected and reported by the sensor; and” [0013] “when the processor is restored to a working state, sending an indication indicating that the processor is restored to the working state, and reporting, by the sensor hub, the sensor data to the processor after receiving the indication indicating that the processor is restored to the working state”. An indication that the processor “is to” enter the sleep state is an indication before the processor enters the sleep state.
Claim(s) 6, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al PN 6,594,774 in view of Sedarat et al PN 2009/0282277 and Chen PN 2016/0278014 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Haran et al PN 2009/0263127.
In regards to claims 6, 19: Chapman et al teaches a (“go to sleep until an event wakes them up are well-known to those skilled in the art and thus will not be discussed further except as they pertain to the invention”), but is silent upon the event being detected activity. Sedarat et al teaches ([0004] “The LPI mode turns off most of the component blocks of a transceiver during periods of inactivity, and periodically turns on transceiver blocks for a short period to maintain particular components of transceivers on the network and to determine whether LPI mode should be exited and transceiver power turned on for active operation”). This indicates periodically waking, determining activity, then remaining awake if active instead of being woken up by an activity signal. (i.e. the difference between polling and interrupt). Chen teaches ([0017] “With reference to any one of the first to the third possible implementation manners of the first aspect, in a fourth possible implementation manner, that the processor is restored to the working state includes: customizing a condition under which the sensor hub wakens the processor, and when the sensor hub determines that the wakening condition is met, wakening the processor”) Chen gives as an example one of the ([0042] “the wakening condition includes at least one of the following:” [0043] “an amount of data temporarily stored in the event information table exceeds a specific value; and” [0044] “duration in which the processor is in the sleep state exceeds a specific value.”). While the amount of information stored ion the event information table exceeding a specific value implies activity this is not expressly detecting activity. Haran et al teaches a system that goes to sleep including a “refresh cycle” to wake up. This system includes ([0054] “If ONU 10 detects activity (Block K), ONU 10 can request to wake up (i.e. terminate sleep mode) (Block M) by sending a wake-up request PLOAM message three times (Block N) to OLT 30. OLT 30 receives a wake-up request, and sends three acknowledgement PLOAM messages (Block O) to ONU 10”). It would have been obvious to wake up upon detecting activity because this is a common reason to wake from sleep mode.
Claim(s) 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al PN 6,594,774 in view of Sedarat et al PN 2009/0282277 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Culbert et al PN 2005/0049729.
In regards to claims 7, 20: Chapman et al teaches a first signal to wake for refresh cycle and a second signal when the watchdog expires (i.e. when the suspend duration is greater than or equal a preset threshold) to reboot. Chapman does not expressly teach a power management integrated circuit. Culbert et al expressly teaches a power management unit ([0165] “Thus, these CPU may be rebooted in order to change clock speeds. The special reset cycle for changing clock may be accomplished by programming a register in the memory controller for state initialization and then sending a command to the PMU for a reset”). It would have been obvious to have a power management unit and reset the power management unit when the system is rebooted because the primary purpose of a power management unit is to optimize energy use, regulate voltages, and distribute power to components and the purpose of a reset is to set the unit into a known initial state.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al PN 6,594,774 in view of Sedarat et al PN 2009/0282277 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jin PN 8,942,985.
In regards to claim 10: Chapman et al teaches a timer controlling the wake up to refresh period and the reboot period but does not state the timer is a real time clock. Jin teaches a real time clock ((22) “In one embodiment, the clock 240 is a real time clock (RTC) and the control logic 250 is configured to control the combination of power sates according to a schedule configured to satisfy a refresh rate and a power saving percentage. The schedule is maintained with reference to a real time clock signal provided by the RTC 240. While a real time clock 240 may suffice for scheduling, clock signals with much higher frequencies may be required by the data collection hardware 210” “Therefore, method 400 also includes, at 465, configuring the wakeup logic to provide a subsequent wakeup signal at a pre-defined point in time in the future. In one example, the pre-determined period of time is selected to cause the GNSS receiver to consume at least fifty percent less power than the GNSS receiver would consume if left in a powered up state. In one example, the method includes configuring the wakeup logic to provide the wakeup signal within a time period defined by a refresh rate”). It would have been obvious to use a RTC because RTC are a common form of timer.
In regards to claim 11: Chapman et al teaches two thresholds the time to wake up and the time to reboot if it did not refresh the timer before the watchdog timed out. Chapman teaches a first threshold the difference between the moment the watchdog is refreshed by performing a writing to the watchdog and the reboot and a second threshold when the refresh period expires to wake up and write to the watchdog to prevent it from timing out causing rebooting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights