DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-14 are original claims to patent US 11,481,020 B2, which issued 10/25/2022 to Bang et al. (herein Bang ‘020) and claim 15 is newly added.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,481,020 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/152,968, filed on 02/21/2021.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 15 recites, “… wherein the predetermined capacity is varied depending on a used network from a plurality of networks used by the electronic device”. However, Bang ‘020 does not support this claim language at the cited column 10, line 57 to column 11, line 2 (stating, “According to certain embodiments of the disclosure, the second threshold value may be determined in consideration of the kind of the network (e.g., 4th generation (4G), 5G, or wireless fidelity (WIFI))”). This language does not support the electronic device using a plurality of networks as the claim language now requires. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the predetermined capacity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Considering related amendments made at the same time to independent claim 1, the term is interpreted herein as “the predetermined condition”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0346800 A1 to Derek Kumar (herein Kumar) in view of US 2017/0109205 A1 to Ahuja et al. (herein Ahuja). Note, the amendment of 02/19/2026 corrected the claim numbering to be consistent with the original patent, therefore some of the below claim numbers* have been altered as compared to the previous Office Action of 11/19/2025.
Claim 1
Kumar and Ahuja
An electronic device comprising:
Kumar shows an electronic device (Kumar: figure 1; and [0011]).
a temperature sensor; and
Kumar shows a temperature sensor (Kumar: figure 1, element 106; [0043], thermal sensor).
a processor configured to schedule a plurality of processes within a plurality of time periods, wherein the processor is configured to:
Kumar shows a processor (Kumar: figure 1, elements 108, 118) to schedule a plurality of processes (Kumar: [0035], “… the device selectively throttles the CPU operations using the selective forced idling for the different tasks …”; [0045], “… the kernel 110 schedules tasks for execution by the CPU(s) 108 … the kernel includes a CPU scheduler 116 that schedules the tasks for execution using the selective force idle values for each of the tasks … the CPU(s) 108 include an SFI module 118 that executes the tasks using the selective forced idle values for each of the tasks”; and [0036], “… a task is a process that is an instance of a computer program that is being executed …”) within a plurality of time periods (Kumar: [0035], “… Selectively force idling a task means idling the task for part or all of an execution window of the task by a processing core of the CPU that is executing the task … When a task is scheduled to be executed by a CPU processing core, this processing core executes the task for a time defined by the execution window …”). Kumar shows the broadest reasonable interpretation of a plurality of time periods through the discrete moments of time on a time line (Kumar: figure 3, element 306).
detect that a temperature of the electronic device exceeds a predetermined temperature;
Kumar shows detecting a temperature of the electronic device exceeds a predetermined temperature (Kumar: [0035], “… manages a thermal profile of a device … the device monitors the thermal level of the device … If the thermal level reaches or exceeds one or more thermal thresholds, the device selectively throttles the CPU operations using the selective forced idling for the different tasks …”).
configure a plurality of process groups including a first process group and a second process group, wherein the first process group comprises at least one process that satisfies a predetermined condition, and the second process group comprises at least one process that does not satisfy the predetermined condition wherein the predetermined condition is whether the network throughput exceeds a threshold, and
Kumar shows a plurality of process groups including a first process group and a second process group (Kumar: figure 3, a first group of Low QOS Tasks, and a second group of High QOS tasks). Kumar shows the first process group comprises at least one process that satisfies a predetermined condition (Kumar: [0048], tasks 302B and 302C satisfy a low QOS condition). Kumar shows the second process group comprises at least one process that does not satisfy the predetermined condition (Kumar: [0048], tasks 302A is a high QOS condition which does not satisfy the low QOS condition).
Kumar does not explicitly state wherein the predetermined condition is whether the network throughput exceeds a threshold. However, Ahuja demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use network throughput in workload scheduling in relation to throttling computing resource temperatures (Ahuja: [0029], network throughput, qos, exceeding thresholds). Kumar suggests its QOS condition (a low QOS corresponding to the claimed predetermined condition) can be linked to other conditions including I/O, realtime execution, and video/audio processing (Kumar: [0040]-[0041], related to performance). Kumar also shows controlling throughput related to temperature and controlling throughput exceeding a capacity/threshold (Kumar: [0038], high energy consuming tasks; [0004], where high energy consuming tasks are heat generating from CPU operations; thus a condition of an excess data throughput over time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement QOS predetermined condition of Kumar as being based on a network throughout exceeding a threshold as suggested by the teachings of Ahuja in view of Kumar. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; both references are directed to managing computing resource load and balancing; and grouping processes on a condition such as network throughput (and a corresponding threshold) will beneficially help manage processes through classification based on performance related to resource consumption and heat generation (Kumar: [0040]-[0041], realtime execution, video/audio processing) (Ahuja: [0029], performance issues with network throughput, QOS).
run the at least one process of the first process group within first time periods of the plurality of time periods that are scheduled as operation times for the at least one process of the first process group and not run the at least one process of the first process group within second time periods of the plurality of time periods that are scheduled as delay times for the at least one process of the first process group, and
Kumar shows running the at least one process of the first process group within first time periods of the plurality of time periods that are scheduled as operation times for the at least one process of the first process group (Kumar: figure 3, low QOS tasks, 302B or 302C, running for some of the discrete time periods of time line 306, before the idle point of 308). Kumar shows not running the at least one process of the first process group within second time periods of the plurality of time periods that are scheduled as delay times for the at least one process of the first process group (Kumar: Kumar: figure 3, low QOS tasks, 302B or 302C, not running for some of the discrete time periods of time line 306, before the idle point of 308).
run the at least one process of the second process group within each of the
plurality of time periods.
Kumar shows running the at least one process of the second process group within each of the
plurality of time periods (Kumar: figure 3, “High QOS Task 302A” running for each of the discrete time periods of the time line 306, before the idle point of 308).
Claim 2
Kumar and Ahuja
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
repeatedly measure the temperature using the temperature sensor,
Kumar shows repeatedly measuring the temperature over time as part of the normal operation of the electronic device (Kumar: [0043]).
repeatedly determine whether the repeatedly measured temperature exceeds the predetermined temperature, and
Kumar shows repeatedly evaluating if the temperature exceeds a threshold (Kumar: [0044], “… If the thermal load on the device 100 continues to increase, thermald 110 can either further throttle the lower QoS tasks and/or start to throttle the higher QoS tasks …”).
run the at least one process of the first process group within the first time periods and the second time periods, when the repeatedly measured temperature is lower than the predetermined temperature.
Kumar shows running the at least one process of the first process group within the first time periods and the second time periods, when the repeatedly measured temperature is lower than the predetermined temperature (Kumar: [0045], “… as the thermal load of the device decreases, thermald 110 lessens or removes the throttling of the lower and/or higher levels by relaxing the constraints placed on the different QoS tasks … In this embodiment, if the thermal load of the device lessens, thermald 110 relaxes the selective forced idling of one, some, or all tasks to a normal state (e.g., no selective forced idle for that task) …”). In other words, the low QOS tasks are now able to run in all time periods and are not limited or delayed (Kumar: figure 5, see column with no throttling).
Claim 3
Kumar and Ahuja
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is that data throughput exceeds a predetermined capacity for a predetermined time.
Kumar shows using different criteria as the predetermined condition including data throughput exceeds a predetermined capacity for a predetermined time (Kumar: [0038], high energy consuming tasks; [0004], where high energy consuming tasks are heat generating from CPU operations; thus a condition of an excess data throughput over time).
Claim 4
Kumar and Ahuja
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is that a usage rate of the processor exceeds a predetermined level for a predetermined time.
Kumar shows using different criteria as the predetermined condition including a usage rate of the processor exceeds a predetermined level for a predetermined time (Kumar: [0038], high energy consuming tasks; [0004], where high energy consuming tasks are heat generating from CPU operations; thus a condition of an excess usage rate over time).
Claim 5
Kumar and Ahuja
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is related to any one of a display, a voice, or a camera.
Kumar shows using different criteria as the predetermined condition including a usage rate of the processor exceeds a predetermined level for a predetermined time (Kumar: [0038], video encoding is related to display and camera).
Claim 6
Kumar and Ahuja
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined temperature corresponds to a plurality of predetermined temperatures, and
*Previous Office Action Claim 8.
Kumar shows a plurality of predetermined temperatures (Kumar: [0044], “… the device can be configured for several different thermal thresholds …”).
the processor is configured to change time length of at least one of the first time periods and the second time periods in accordance with the plurality of predetermined temperatures.
Kumar shows the first and second lengths of time changing based on the predetermined temperatures (Kumar: [0044], “… the device can be configured for several different thermal thresholds, with each thermal threshold having different CPU throttling levels …”). Changing the throttling levels means running tasks for different amounts of time.
Claims 8-13
Kumar and Ahuja
The limitations of claims 8-13 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-6.
*Previous Office Action Claims 11-15, and 18.
As such the limitations of claims 8-13 are rejected in a corresponding manner as the limitations of claims 1-6.
Claim 14
Kumar and Ahuja
The method of claim 11, wherein configuring the plurality of process groups
comprises:
configuring at least a portion of the at least one process of the first process group as a third process group and a remaining of the at least one process of the first process group as a fourth
process group, and
*Previous Office Action Claim 22.
Kumar shows at least a portion of the at least one process of the first process group as a third process group and a remaining of the at least one process of the first process group as a fourth process group (Kumar: figure 3, showing multiple low QOS tasks 302B and 302C; and figure 5, [0051], showing throttling QOS classes/groups). As shown in figure 5, throttled or low QOS tasks can be considered as multiple sub groupings with different criteria and actions applied (Kumar: figure 5, columns 504B and 504C).
wherein delay times of the third process group is longer than delay times of the fourth process group.
Kumar shows delay times of the third process group is longer than delay times of the fourth process group (Kumar: figure 5, throttled columns 504B and 504C, one with longer delays times).
Claim 7
Kumar and Ahuja
The limitations of claim 7 correspond to the limitations of claim 14.
*Previous Office Action Claim 21.
As such the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in a corresponding manner as the limitations of claim 14.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0346800 A1 to Derek Kumar (herein Kumar) in view of US 2017/0109205 A1 to Ahuja et al. (herein Ahuja) in further view of US 2021/0105637 A1 to Samuel Whitley (herein Whitley).
Claim 15
Kumar and Ahuja and Whitley
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined [condition] is varied
depending on a used network from a plurality of networks used by the electronic device.
As state above, this language is not supported by the original filed disclosure. Therefore, this language is interpreted as varying the predetermined condition based on network type.
Kumar does not explicitly state wherein the predetermined [condition] is varied depending on a used network from a plurality of networks used by the electronic device. However, Whitley demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for QOS to vary with relation to throughout and type of network (Whitley: [0036], “the returned results can also indicate a predicted or estimated quality of service (QoS) for the route (e.g., which may include information relating to expected throughput, type of network, latency, etc.)”). Kumar in view of Ahuja, as stated above, show using a predetermined condition based on network throughput for performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement predetermined condition of Kumar as being varied depending on the network type as suggested by the teachings of Whitley. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; Ahuja and Whitley are directed to QOS in network throughput; and it is beneficial to help manage processes through classification based on performance, including for situations the QOS may differ such as different types of networks (Kumar: [0040]-[0041], realtime execution, video/audio processing) (Ahuja: [0029], performance issues with network throughput, QOS) (Whitley: [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The following objections/rejections from the Office Action of 11/19/2025 are withdrawn in view of the Patent Owner Response of 02/19/2026: (1) Amendment Objections; and (2) Oath/Declaration Objections and Rejections under 35 USC 251.
Amendment Objections
The objections to the preliminary amendment of 10/24/2024 is withdrawn in view of the current amendment of 02/19/2026 which correctly lists the original claims as claims 1-14 with markings shown relative to the patent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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 H. Wood/
Primary Examiner, CRU 3992
Conferees:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992