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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities in the amendment of 05/19/2026: (1) the amendment does not make changes relative to the patent as required by 37 CFR 1.173(g); (2) the amendment does not make changes by marking as required by 37 CFR 1.173(d); and (3) the amendment does not provide proper support from the disclosure for the changes as required by 37 CFR 1.173(c). Appropriate correction is required.
First, the amendment makes changes relative to the previous amendment language and not relative to the patent language. For example, the current amendment must also show the deletion of the original claim language “when the temperature exceeds the predetermined temperature”. Additionally, the previously added limitation, “where the predetermined condition is whether the network throughput exceeds a threshold”, was not part of the original claims 1 and 8 (it was added in the previous amendment 02/19/2026) and as such removal means simply not showing it as being added to the claim. There are several other changes not properly shown. In summary, along with any current additions or deletions of the original language, any previous changes of the original language must be shown.
Second, deletions/removal of claim language must be shown in brackets. This is to be shown when making deletions of original claim language, not newly added language that is later removed.
Third, while the remarks of 05/19/2026 appear to show some alleged support (see page 9), there is no support shown for adding the “when the temperature exceeds the detected temperature” to the “configure” limitation instead of the “run” limitation (see claims 1 and 8).
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
The originally filed disclosure, including the cited paragraphs [0060], [0092], [0100], do not provide support for the newly added claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 8. For example, none of the cited paragraphs mentions a “background process”, much less configuring a plurality of groups such that a first process group comprises at least one background process (satisfying a condition) and a second process group comprises at least one background process (not satisfying that condition). Further, the Specification does not show configuring a plurality of process groups, “when the temperature exceeds the detected temperature”. Additionally, the Specification does not show either, “run the at least one background 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 background process of the first process group, and not run the at least one background 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 background process of the first process group”, or “run the at least one background process of the second process group within each of the plurality of time periods”. The disclosure simply does not indicate the level of specificity of what time periods are running background processes (in particular that the background process of the second group, that does not satisfy the condition, is run in each time period). This level of claimed detail requires more than vague references to the specification showing “background processes”. An appropriate response would include citations to the Disclosure, including what specification language maps to what claimed language.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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. The claim language “when the temperature exceeds the detected temperature” (for example, “temperature” and “detected temperature” appear to refer to the same thing) is not logically supported by the preceding “detect …” limitation. It will be interpreted as “when the temperature exceeds the predetermined temperature” (which is consistent with a similar limitation found in the original claims).
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 2014/0101237 A1 to Chan et al. (herein Chan).
Claim 1
Kumar shows an electronic device (Kumar: figure 1; and [0011]) comprising:
a temperature sensor (Kumar: figure 1, element 106; [0043], thermal sensor); and
a processor (Kumar: figure 1, elements 108, 118) configured 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 timeline through figure 3, element 306), wherein the processor is configured to:
detect that 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 …”);
when the temperature exceeds the predetermined temperature (shown for the same reasons as above for the “detect” limitation), configure a plurality of process groups from among processes operating in a background to classify (Kumar: [0040], [0051]; further see below that the applications/programs of Kumar may obviously include foreground and background processes) 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), wherein the first process group comprises at least one background process that satisfies a predetermined condition (Kumar: [0048], tasks 302B and 302C satisfy a low QOS condition), and the second process group comprises at least one background 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), and
run the at least one background 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 background 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), and not run the at least one background 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 background 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), and
run the at least one background 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).
To the extent Kumar does not explicitly state the first process group includes a background process and the second process group includes a background process, Chan demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for applications to have both foreground processes and background processes (Chan: [0034], an “application may include multiple threads, e.g. a background thread (e.g., a service component) and a foreground thread (e.g., an activity component)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the applications/programs of the process groups of Kumar with including both foreground and background processes (and as such for each of the first and second process groups identified in Kumar to have background processes/tasks) as suggested by the teachings of Chan. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: Chan is discussing a typical application configuration (e.g., applications with foreground and background processes) in an environment to reduce the workload and improve device power management on the device executing the application (Chan: [0005]); similarly Kumar shows applications being executed in an environment managing power for thermal control (Kumar: [0004], [0035]); as such, the implementation is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art.
Claim 2
Kumar shows the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
repeatedly measure the temperature using the temperature sensor (Kumar: [0043]),
repeatedly determine whether the repeatedly measured temperature exceeds the predetermined temperature (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 …”), and
run the at least one background 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 shows the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is that 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 shows 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: [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 shows the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is related to any one of a display, a voice, or a camera (Kumar: [0038], video encoding is related to display and camera).
Claim 6
Kumar shows the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined temperature corresponds to a plurality of predetermined temperatures (Kumar: [0044], “… the device can be configured for several different thermal thresholds …”), and
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: [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.
Claim 7
Kumar shows the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
configure at least a portion of the at least one background process of the first process group as a third process group and a remaining of the at least one background 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), and
wherein 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).
Claims 8-14
The limitations of claims 8-14 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-7.
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 2014/0101237 A1 to Chan et al. (herein Chan) in further view of US 2021/0105637 A1 to Samuel Whitley (herein Whitley).
Claim 15
Kumar does not explicitly state, wherein the predetermined condition is varied based on a network 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, as stated above, shows using a predetermined condition. 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; Kumar and Whitley are directed to QOS; 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)(Whitley: [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner’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.
Further, as the above rejection discusses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the applications/programs of the process groups of Kumar with including both foreground and background processes (and as such for each of the first and second process groups identified in Kumar to have background processes/tasks) as suggested by the teachings of Chan. Therefore, it would be obvious the “FG APP” and “APP NAP” classes of Kumar’s figure 5 would each include foreground and background processes/tasks. In view of Chan, an application (including a “foreground” application) can have background tasks. Accordingly, Kumar in view of Chan does not merely distinguish foreground tasks from non-foreground tasks and Kumar in view of Chan does divide background processes/tasks into different groups and control accordingly. Therefore, to the extent the arguments are applicable to the current rejection and cited prior art, the arguments are not persuasive.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The following objections/rejections from the Office Action of 03/19/2026 are withdrawn in view of the Patent Owner Response of 05/19/2026: (1) 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 15; and (2) 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 15.
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
Prosecution Insights