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 Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend on a multiple dependent claim. Multiple dependent claims 19 and 20 both depend on multiple dependent claim 8. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 19-20 are not being further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi PN 2015/0058617 in view of Li et al PN 2014/0115308.
In regards to claims 1, 11: Oishi teaches a method for displaying a battery level ([0008] “Further, many of the battery-powered information processing devices have a function of displaying remaining battery capacity. Various suggestions have been made for a timing of updating the display of the remaining battery capacity or a method for displaying the remaining battery capacity more accurately”), performed by a terminal device (information processing device 100), the terminal device comprising a first operating system (102a or 351a) and a second operating system (102b or 351b); the method comprising: obtaining first battery-level information in response to the first operating system ([0289] “Further, the calculation unit 343 may calculate the initial value of the virtual remaining capacity value that corresponds to the OS 351a and the initial value of the virtual remaining capacity value that corresponds to the OS 351b, in step S101. Then, the profiles 341a and 342b may report the calculated initial value to the OSs 351a and 351b, respectively”), wherein the first battery-level information is battery-level information before the first operating system is initialized (initial value); determining, by the second operating system, first initial battery-level information based on the first battery-level information (initial value of second operating system); and displaying the first initial battery-level information in the second operating system ([0008] “Further, many of the battery-powered information processing devices have a function of displaying remaining battery capacity. Various suggestions have been made for a timing of updating the display of the remaining battery capacity or a method for displaying the remaining battery capacity more accurately”). Oishi teaches both operating systems running at the same time thus not “switched” from the first operating system to the second operating system. Oishi also does not expressly teach one operating system using “less than the power consumed” … by the “second operating system”. Li et al switching between two operating systems ([0004] “To satisfy the different demands of the user, there is proposed a computer with two operating systems, which have different characteristics. For example, one operating system may be the Window.RTM.7 operating system with a relative powerful processing capacity, while the other operating system may be the Android.RTM. operating system with a relative weak processing capacity that needs less resource and power consumption. However, when the computer performs a switching between the two operating systems, since it is needed to put the current running operating system in a sleep state, load the system files of the second operating system from the memory into the system memory, and then run the second operating system. That is, the currently running operating system should first save the field, for example, it stores the data of the currently running applications into the memory of the computer, and then starts up the other operating system and restores the applications that were stored into the memory manually by the user in the other operating system. In turn, this results in a long time taken for the switching between the two operating systems, a tedious operation, and the processing performed on different partitions on the hard disk”.). Li et al teaches switches between the two operating systems with one requiring less power consumption the one that has the lower power consumption (Android) will be identified as the claimed first operating system and the one that requires greater power (Windows) will be identified as the claimed second operating system. It would have been obvious to modify Li et al to display the power level information by the active operating system because this would allow a user to know the remaining battery capacity of the computer system.
In regards to claims 4, 8, 13 and 16: Oishi teaches initial power level for both the first and the second operating systems. Li et al teaches switching from the first to the second operating system and switching back from the second to the first operating system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to display the initial power for the first operating system and the initial power for the second operating system as well as the initial power level for switching back and displaying the second initial power level when switching back.
In regards to claims 17-18: Oihhi teaches ([0106] “When the physical remaining capacity value is less than a first threshold, the evaluation unit 103 may regard the virtual remaining capacity value as zero, for each of at least one of the plurality of OSs. In other words, in this case, the reporting unit 104 reports to each of the at least one of the plurality of OSs that the virtual remaining capacity value is zero”.) and ([0319] “In the meantime, in step S108, when the physical remaining capacity value R is judged to be not less than the threshold Dp, in step S113, the calculation unit 343 judges whether or not both of the following conditions (17a) and (17b) are satisfied”. [0320] “(17a) The battery 311 (i.e., the battery 201) is being charged”. [0321] “(17b) The flag 347 indicates that while the battery 311 is being charged, the physical remaining capacity value is regarded as the maximum value”. [0322] “For example, the calculation unit 343 may issue to the battery I/F 203 an inquiry as to whether or not the battery 311 is being charged. In other words, the calculation unit 343 may judge whether the battery 311 is being charged though the access to the battery I/F 203”). Not less than is greater than or equal to a threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: . Oishi teaches simply reading the power level (remaining battery capacity) from the acquisition unit 342 to display therefore there is no reason to request or send or calculate used power from the power level information from one operating system to the other operating system. The examiner was also unable to fine recording the battery power level at the time one of the plural operating systems in a was shutdown.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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