DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 12/11/2024 for application number 18/873,911. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Claims, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and IDS.
The Preliminary Amendment filed 12/11/2024 is acknowledged. The Specification is amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/11/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the foreign references CN 103843256, CN 108931731, and CN 110247411 were listed but no accompanying documents were provided and therefore are not considered.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “Bluetooth devices” recited throughout the Specification, beginning in paragraph 0003, should read “Bluetooth® devices” (emphasis added).
Paragraph numbers from [00100] to [00192] should instead read [0100] to [0192] to maintain consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, lines 1-2 recite, “…wherein the providing the notification including sending a request to another computing device…” should instead read, “wherein the providing the notification includes sending a request to another computing device” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 recite a method. Claims 14-19 recite a computing device. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Therefore, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process, Claims 14-19 are directed to a manufacture, and Claim 20 is also directed to a manufacture.
With respect to Claims 1, 14, and 20:
2A Prong 1: The Claims recite a judicial exception.
collecting, by a computing device from one or more task management services, information about tasks scheduled for a user in a time period, the time period being later than a current time (mental process – evaluation or judgment),
determining, by the computing device, a battery-operated device associated with one of the tasks (mental process – evaluation or judgment),
determining, by the computing device, a length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period based on the information collected about the tasks (mental process – evaluation or judgment),
computing, by the computing device, a required battery level for the battery-operated device based on the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period and an energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device (mental process – evaluation or judgement; mathematical concept – mathematical relationship).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
(Claim 1) a method; (Claim 14) A computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-volatile memory; (Claim 20) A non-transitory machine-readable medium encoding instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause a process to (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
by a computing device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
responsive to a determination that an actual battery level of the battery-operated device is less than the required battery level, providing, by the computing device, a notification of a need to charge the battery-operated device; (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Claim 1) a method; (Claim 14) A computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-volatile memory; (Claim 20) A non-transitory machine-readable medium encoding instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause a process to (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
by a computing device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
responsive to a determination that an actual battery level of the battery-operated device is less than the required battery level, providing, by the computing device, a notification of a need to charge the battery-operated device; (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity – See MPEP 2106.05(g); WURC: Receiving or transmitting data over a network – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Therefore, the Claims are ineligible.
With respect to Claim 2:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the time period is a next working day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the time period is a next working day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Therefore, the Claim is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 3:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the time period is a remaining time in a current day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the time period is a remaining time in a current day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Therefore, the Claim is ineligible.
With respect to Claims 4 and 16:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the determining the battery-operated device associated with one of the tasks is based on the information collected about the tasks (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f); mere data gathering – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
2B: The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the determining the battery-operated device associated with one of the tasks is based on the information collected about the tasks (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claims are ineligible.
With respect to Claims 5 and 17:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period is a length of the time period (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period is a length of the time period (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claims are ineligible.
With respect to Claims 6 and 18:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period is a length of time of the tasks in the time period which are associated with the battery-operated device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period is a length of time of the tasks in the time period which are associated with the battery-operated device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claims are ineligible.
With respect to Claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is over one or more durations the battery-operated device is powered on during a day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is over one or more durations the battery-operated device is powered on during a day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claim is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 8:
2A Prong 1: The Claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average energy consumption rate (mathematical concept – mathematical relationships),
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average energy consumption rate (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average energy consumption rate (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claim is ineligible.
With respect to Claims 9 and 19:
2A Prong 1: The Claims recites a judicial exception.
wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device (mathematical concept – mathematical relationships).
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f); mere data gathering – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
2B: The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claims are ineligible.
With respect to Claim 10:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the providing the notification including sending a request to another computing device to notify of a need to charge the battery-operated device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Insignificant Extra Solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
2B: The Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Insignificant Extra Solution Activity – see MPEP 2106(g); WURC: Receiving or transmitting data over a network – see 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Therefore, the Claims are ineligible.
With respect to Claim 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the Claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually, or in combination.
wherein the time period is one of a next working day or a remaining time in a current day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
2B: The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the time period is one of a next working day or a remaining time in a current day (mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the Claim is ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4-7, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA et al., US 2012/0254634 A1, in view of CARDOZO et al., US 2016/0073351 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, CHAKRA discloses:
collecting, by a computing device from one or more task management services, information about tasks scheduled for a user in a time period, the time period being later than a current time ([0029] discloses the software 104 may include an operating system that allows other applications to interact properly with the hardware of the computing system; the other applications may include a calendar application and a battery usage prediction application; [0037] discloses the analytical module 206 of the battery power usage prediction application 202 can examine upcoming events 222 (i.e. tasks scheduled at a later time) and determine which tasks are likely to be used for those upcoming events 222 (i.e. collecting information about tasks scheduled));
determining, by the computing device, a length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period based on the information collected about the tasks ([0014] discloses a computing device such as a smart phone or a laptop computer can keep track of how much battery power is consumed for particular tasks that are performed by that device (i.e. the computing device can also be the battery-operated device it is monitoring); [0037] discloses the analytical module 206 can consider the projected or scheduled length of the upcoming event 222 (i.e. can determine the length of time based on the length of the upcoming event that the computing device (i.e. that a battery-operated device) will be performing));
computing, by the computing device, a required battery level for the battery-operated device based on the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period and an energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device ([0034] discloses the analytical module 206 compares the use of computing system tasks with past events 220 and can then determine which types of meetings involve the use of particular types of computing system tasks and computing system components; [0036] discloses the analytical module 206 can determine how a particular application consumed battery power for a particular type of previous event (i.e. energy consumption rate for that event); [0037] discloses the analytical module 206 considers the projected or scheduled length of the upcoming event 222 so as to estimate the battery power needed (i.e. computing a required battery level) for tasks associated with the event over the projected length of the event (i.e. required battery level is based on length of time of the upcoming event 222)); and
responsive to a determination that an actual battery level of the battery-operated device is less than the required battery level, providing, by the computing device, a notification of a need to charge the battery-operated device ([0039] discloses if the currently available battery power is less than the projected battery power usage for the upcoming event (i.e. determination that an actual battery level of the device is less than the required battery level), then the battery power usage prediction application 202 can project that the battery power will be exhausted during that event; [0040] discloses in response to that determination that the battery power will likely be exhausted during an upcoming event, the user notification module 208 can notify the user; the user notification module 208 may notify the user to fully charge the battery prior to the schedule event (i.e. in response to determining the actual battery level will not be sufficient, a notification is provided to charge the device before the event)).
CHAKRA does not explicitly disclose determining, by the computing device, a battery-operated device associated with one of the tasks.
However, CARDOZO teaches determining, by the computing device, a battery-operated device associated with one of the tasks ([0084] teaches the mobile device 100 may receive battery life information of the peripheral device that is used to run an application (i.e. the peripheral device is a battery-operated device that is associated to a task); [0356] teaches a mobile device 100-1 (i.e. the computing device) determines whether the peripheral device is used for a current or future application (i.e. the mobile device can determine a battery-operated device that is associated with a future application).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA and CARDOZO before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate monitoring battery of a peripheral device used for a future application as taught by CARDOZO into the method disclosed by CHAKRA to alleviate the need for the user to manually check the battery of the peripheral device in advance (CARDOZO [0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CHAKRA further discloses wherein the time period is a remaining time in a current day (Fig. 3 illustrates a day schedule 300 of a calendar application; [0046] discloses the time column 302 shows a typical 12-hour day schedule).
Regarding Claim 4, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CARDOZO further teaches wherein the determining the battery-operated device associated with one of the tasks is based on the information collected about the tasks ([0309] teaches a remote device may send a request for a heart scan event, which can include the ID of an application to be run, a runtime of the application, and information of a paired peripheral device; [0310] teaches the mobile device receives the requested event and schedules it accordingly (i.e. the request is now a future event and includes information about the paired peripheral device); [0311] teaches the mobile device requests battery information from the peripheral device, as it is paired with the heart rate scan application that was scheduled at a later time (i.e. the computing device is aware (i.e. determines) the peripheral device is needed for the upcoming event based on the information about the event (i.e. heart scan event) and begins checking for sufficient battery of the peripheral device)).
Regarding Claim 5, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CHAKRA further discloses wherein the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period is a length of the time period ([0037] discloses the analytical module 206 considers the projected or scheduled length of the upcoming event 222 so as to estimate the battery power needed for tasks associated with the event over the projected length of the event (i.e. the computing device is estimating the battery power needed for the length of the event, as it will be on during that time).
Regarding Claim 6, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CHAKRA further discloses wherein the length of time the battery-operated device will be powered on during the time period is a length of time of the tasks in the time period which are associated with the battery-operated device ([0037] discloses the analytical module 206 considers the projected or scheduled length of the upcoming event 222 so as to estimate the battery power needed for tasks associated with the event over the projected length of the event (i.e. the computing device is estimating the battery power needed for the length of the event, including the tasks associated with that event, as it will be on during that time)).
Regarding Claim 7, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CHAKRA further discloses wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is over one or more durations the battery-operated device is powered on during a day (Fig. 3 illustrates Events column 304 with the scheduled events: Meeting 1 (308), Meeting 2 (310), and Presentation (312) scheduled for the day (i.e. the computing system will need to be on an performing during those durations of events); [0036] discloses the analytical module 206 can determine how a particular application consumed battery power for a particular type of previous event (i.e. energy consumption rate for that event); [0037] discloses the analytical module 206 considers the projected or scheduled length of the upcoming event 222 so as to estimate the battery power needed for tasks associated with the event over the projected length of the event (i.e. the analytical module can utilize past events with the energy consumption rates to account for upcoming events)).
Regarding Claim 14, CHAKRA discloses:
A computing device (Fig. 1 illustrates a physical computing system 100) comprising:
a processor (processor 108); and
a non-volatile memory (memory 102) storing computer program code that when executed on the processor causes the processor to execute a process ([0029] discloses a processor for executing the software 104 (i.e. software 104 inside memory 102) and using or updating the data 106 stored in memory 102) including:
The remainder of Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claims 15-18, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the computing device of Claim 14. Claims 15, 16, 17, and 18 recite limitations similar to Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, CHAKRA discloses:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium encoding instructions (Fig. 1 illustrates memory 102 (i.e. a non-transitory machine-readable medium) including software 104 and data 106 (i.e. the software having encoded instructions)) that when executed by one or more processors cause a process to be carried out ([0029] discloses processor 108 for executing the software 104 (i.e. executing to cause a process)) and using or updating the data 106 stored in memory 102).
The remainder of Claim 20 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA, in view of CARDOZO, and further in view of VANBLON et al., US 2019/0148960 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
The combination of CHAKRA and CARDOZO do not explicitly disclose wherein the time period is a next working day.
However, VANBLON teaches wherein the time period is a next working day ([0077] teaches an expected device usage may be determined based on calendar events, device location, and historical device usage data; factors may be identified and useful for estimating the device’s demands placed on it by the user for the next day (i.e. the planned usage is during the next day) to determine if charging should be performed the preceding day and a notification be provided during the preceding day (i.e. the computing device performs the method to check for sufficient battery and providing a notification otherwise for the scheduled usage of the next day)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and VANBLON before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an intelligent battery usage prediction as taught by VANBLON into the method disclosed by CHAKRA and CARDOZO to provide user with ability to use the device when he or she may wish to do so or prevent the user having to restrict his or her use of the device to conserve battery power (VANBLON [0002]).
Claims 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA, in view of CARDOZO, and further in view of OSTERLOH et al., US 2022/0022131 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CHAKRA further discloses the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device ([0036] discloses the analytical module 206 can determine how a particular application consumed battery power for a particular type of previous event (i.e. energy consumption rate for that event).
The combination of CHAKRA and CARDOZO do not explicitly disclose wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average energy consumption rate.
However, OSTERLOH teaches wherein the energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average energy consumption rate ([0040] teaches the battery burn rate (i.e. energy consumption rate) measures a short-term average of daily battery consumption (i.e. the energy consumption rate is an average)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and OSTERLOH before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate measuring battery consumption rate as an average of daily battery consumption as taught by OSTERLOH into the method disclosed by CHAKRA and CARDOZO to detect a high or low battery burn rate that can provide indication of poor signal quality or good signal quality respectively (OSTERLOH [0040]).
Regarding Claim 9, CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and OSTERLOH disclose the method of Claim 8.
OSTERLOH further teaches wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device ([0040] teaches the battery burn rate (i.e. the energy consumption rate) measures a short-term average of daily battery consumption over a recent period, such as two months, three months, six months, and/or the like (i.e. the average consumption rate is an average of the daily battery consumption rates that can span over recent months)).
Regarding Claim 19, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the computing device of Claim 14.
The combination of CHAKRA and CARDOZO do not explicitly disclose wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device.
However, OSTERLOH teaches wherein the average energy consumption rate of the battery-operated device is an average of most recent 10 average daily energy consumption rates of the battery-operated device ([0040] teaches the battery burn rate (i.e. the energy consumption rate) measures a short-term average of daily battery consumption over a recent period, such as two months, three months, six months, and/or the like (i.e. the average consumption rate is an average of the daily battery consumption rates that can span over recent months)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and OSTERLOH before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate measuring battery consumption rate as an average of daily battery consumption as taught by OSTERLOH into the method disclosed by CHAKRA and CARDOZO to detect a high or low battery burn rate that can provide indication of poor signal quality or good signal quality respectively (OSTERLOH [0040]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA, in view of CARDOZO, and further in view of RYU et al., US 2015/0341901 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CARDOZO further teaches notify of a need to charge the battery-operated device ([0374] teaches a battery notification 2300 including a message displayed to request the user to charge the peripheral device (i.e. notification of a need to charge the battery-operated device).
The combination of CHAKRA and CARDOZO do not explicitly disclose wherein the providing the notification including sending a request to another computing device to notify of a need to charge the battery-operated device.
However, RYU teaches wherein the providing the notification including sending a request to another computing device to notify of a need to charge the battery-operated device ([0173] teaches the processor 620 of a wearable device (i.e. a battery-operated device and can also be another computing device) receives a notification request from an electronic device 110; [0174] teaches when a notification event occurs in the wearable device 120a, the processor 620 informs the electronic device 110 of the notification event; the contents of the notification event may include an increase in a heartbeat, a danger of a loss, a low battery capacity, a weak network signal, etc.) (i.e. the electronic device can request a notification to be provided by the wearable device to notify the need to charge by the low battery capacity)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and RYU before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a request to notify a need to charge from another device as taught by RYU into the method disclosed by CHAKRA and CARDOZO to provide an appropriate form of providing a notification to the user when the user uses various types of electronic devices together (RYU [0006]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA, in view of CARDOZO, in view of RYU, and further in view of HWANG et al., US 2017/0196456 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and RYU disclose the method of Claim 10.
CHAKRA further discloses a notice informing that the actual battery level of the battery-operated device is insufficient for the time period, wherein the notice includes a user interface (UI) element that can be used to obtain details about the required battery level for the battery-operated device (Fig. 4 illustrates a notification 402 that displays user interface 400 with a pop-up notification 402 (i.e. a user interface (UI) element) that notifies the user that the battery may not last through the upcoming event; [0050] discloses the a fully charged battery would be sufficient to last throughout the entire upcoming event, then the system may suggest the user charge the battery beforehand or to bring a power adapter; [0051] discloses additionally providing the user with details of non-essential applications to prevent from running to have the battery power last throughout the upcoming event (i.e. the notification provides details in ways to reach the required battery level for the computing device, by reminding to fully-charge beforehand, or preventing from running non-required applications); [0040] discloses if an event is projected to exhaust less than a fully charged battery, the battery power usage prediction application 202 may only notify the user (i.e. display a notice) right before the event if it is determined that the currently available power is less than the battery power that is projected to be consumed during the event (i.e. the current battery level is insufficient for the length of the upcoming event); Additionally or alternatively, the user notification module 208 may notify the user to fully charge the battery prior to the scheduled event, this notification being issued with sufficient time to fully charge the battery before the scheduled event),
RYU further teaches responsive to receiving the request: displaying, by the another computing device, on a display of the another computing device a notice informing that the actual battery level of the battery-operated device is insufficient ([0173] teaches the processor 620 of a wearable device (i.e. a battery-operated device and can also be another computing device) receives a notification request from an electronic device 110; [0174] teaches when a notification event occurs in the wearable device 120a, the processor 620 informs the electronic device 110 of the notification event; the contents of the notification event may include an increase in a heartbeat, a danger of a loss, a low battery capacity, a weak network signal, etc.) (i.e. the wearable device displays a notice that can inform the battery is low, in response to receiving a request from the electronic device to display the notice)),
The combination of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and RYU do not explicitly disclose wherein the notice includes a first user interface (UI) element that can be used to obtain details about the required battery level for the battery-operated device, and a second UI element that can be used to provide a confirmation of a charging of the battery-operated device.
However, HWANG teaches wherein the notice includes a first user interface (UI) element that can be used to obtain details about the battery level for the battery-operated device, and a second UI element that can be used to provide a confirmation of a charging of the battery-operated device (Fig. 11 illustrates an output portion of second wearing unit 11 having a user interface (UI) with multiple UI elements wherein one UI element can provide battery information (i.e. a first UI element that can be used to obtain details about the battery level of the battery-operated device) such as power status 1101 on the first and second wearing units 10 and 11; [0122] teaches a user may confirm the battery charging status and select the charging mode through the UI (i.e. user can confirm battery charging status from one of the multiple UI elements (i.e. a second UI element)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, RYU, and HWANG before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate having multiple UI elements to provide a device’s battery information and charging status as taught by HWANG into the method disclosed by CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and RYU to allow user to make decisions on charging a low battery device with power from the paired device with higher battery until their battery is equal (HWANG [0125]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA, in view of CARDOZO, in view of RYU, in view of HWANG, and further in view of DEETER et al., US 2014/0149538 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, CHAKRA, CARDOZO, RYU, and HWANG disclose the method of Claim 11.
CHAKRA further discloses the notice informing that the actual battery level of the battery-operated device is insufficient for the time period ([0040] discloses if an event is projected to exhaust less than a fully charged battery, the battery power usage prediction application 202 may only notify the user (i.e. display a notice) right before the event if it is determined that the currently available power is less than the battery power that is projected to be consumed during the event (i.e. the current battery level is insufficient for the length of the upcoming event); Additionally or alternatively, the user notification module 208 may notify the user to fully charge the battery prior to the scheduled event, this notification being issued with sufficient time to fully charge the battery before the scheduled event);
CARDOZO further teaches responsive to a determination that the confirmation of the charging of the battery-operated device is not received: causing the notice informing that the actual battery level of the battery-operated device is insufficient to display on the mobile device ([0325] teaches when the user has not charged the device for 10 minutes after the initial battery notification, the mobile device may display a second battery notification (i.e. the mobile device sends out a notice regarding the battery in response to not receiving confirmation for charging the device after the first notification));
The combination of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, RYU, and HWANG do not explicitly disclose responsive to a determination that the confirmation of the charging of the battery-operated device is not received: determining, by the another computing device, a mobile device associated with the user; causing, by the another computing device, the notice to display on the mobile device.
However, DEETER teaches responsive to a determination that the confirmation of the charging of the battery-operated device is not received: determining, by the another computing device, a mobile device associated with the user; causing, by the another computing device, the notice to display on the mobile device ([0024] teaches the notification module 106 (i.e. component of the another computing device) of the notification system 100 transmits a notification to user device 110A; [0025] teaches the notification module waits for an acknowledgement delay period to receive an acknowledgment (i.e. waiting to receive a confirmation) of the notification from the first user device 110A; In response to the first user device 110A not transmitting an acknowledgement of the notification within the acknowledgement delay period (i.e. responsive to a determination that the confirmation is not received) the notification module 106 selects the second user device 110B (i.e. determining a mobile device associated with the user) and transmits the notification to the second user device 110B (i.e. causing the notice to display on the mobile device); [0009] teaches examples of user device 110 include a mobile device, a table computer, a desktop computer, a set-top box or any other computing device; [0029] teaches any of the steps, operations, or processes described herein may be performed or implemented with one or more hardware or software modules, alone or in combination with other devices; [0030] teaches embodiments of the invention may also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, and/or it may comprise a general-purpose computing device (i.e. the notification module of the notification system may be implemented and/or performed as a hardware module within a computing device to perform the operations)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, RYU, HWANG, and DEETER before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a process to send a notification to another device in response to not receiving an acknowledgement from the first device as taught by DEETER into the method disclosed by CHAKRA, CARDOZO, RYU, and HWANG to simplify user access to notifications by providing notifications in series, rather than parallel (DEETER [0012]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAKRA, in view of CARDOZO, and further in view of HWANG.
Regarding Claim 13, CHAKRA and CARDOZO disclose the method of Claim 1.
CHAKRA further discloses displaying, by the computing device, on a display of the computing device a notice informing that the actual battery level of the battery-operated device is insufficient for the time period (Fig. 4 illustrates a user interface 400 with a pop-up notification 402 informing the user of the insufficient to last through the upcoming event (i.e. the notice is on the display of the computing device); [0040] discloses if an event is projected to exhaust less than a fully charged battery, the battery power usage prediction application 202 may only notify the user (i.e. display a notice) right before the event if it is determined that the currently available power is less than the battery power that is projected to be consumed during the event (i.e. the current battery level is insufficient for the length of the upcoming event); Additionally or alternatively, the user notification module 208 may notify the user to fully charge the battery prior to the scheduled event, this notification being issued with sufficient time to fully charge the battery before the scheduled event).
The combination of CHAKRA and CARDOZO do not explicitly disclose wherein the notice includes a first user interface (UI) element that can be used to obtain details about the required battery level for the battery-operated device, and a second UI element that can be used to provide a confirmation of a charging of the battery-operated device.
However, HWANG teaches wherein the notice includes a first user interface (UI) element that can be used to obtain details about the required battery level for the battery-operated device, and a second UI element that can be used to provide a confirmation of a charging of the battery-operated device (Fig. 11 illustrates an output portion of second wearing unit 11 having a user interface (UI) with multiple UI elements wherein one UI element can provide battery information (i.e. a first UI element) such as power status 1101 on the first and second wearing units 10 and 11; [0122] teaches a user may confirm the battery charging status and select the charging mode through the UI (i.e. user can confirm battery charging status from one of the multiple UI elements (i.e. a second UI element)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CHAKRA, CARDOZO, and HWANG before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate having multiple UI elements to provide a device’s battery information and charging status as taught by HWANG into the method disclosed by CHAKRA and CARDOZO to allow user to make decisions on charging a low battery device with power from the paired device with higher battery until their battery is equal (HWANG [0125]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laurenz Advincula whose telephone number is (571)272-9211. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2175
/ANDREW J JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights