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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2024, 11/12/2025, and 04/22/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-11 are directed to a computer-implemented electronic device (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 12-19 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory (See Pre-Grant Publication 0041) computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). The independent claims under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. Compilation based on order, range, and frequency, is also grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
An electronic device comprising:
memory comprising one or more storage media storing a plurality of packages including instructions in a second type different from a first type; and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry configured to execute instructions in the first type, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain, by compiling the instructions in the second type stored in a package, an order of the plurality of packages based on execution of a first application to obtain the instructions in the first type;
sequentially compile the plurality of packages based on the order; and
in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compile, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of the memory, a temperature, or a battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed.
Claim 12:
A method of an electronic device comprising:
executing a first application associated with a first type;
based on execution of the first application, obtaining an order of a plurality of packages to compile instructions in a second type which are stored in a package;
sequentially compiling the plurality of packages based on the order; and
in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compiling, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of a memory, a temperature, or a battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed.
Claim 20:
A computer readable-storage medium storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, causes the processor of the electronic device to:
based on execution of a first application associated with a first type, obtain an order of a plurality of packages to compile instructions in a second type stored in a package;
sequentially compile the plurality of packages based on the order; and
in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compile, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of a memory, a temperature, or battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages, based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0015-0076). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed includes at least one of time at which the plurality of packages were executed or a number at which the plurality of packages were executed.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein a time at which the plurality of packages were executed includes the time at which the plurality of packages were executed in a preset period.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the number at which the plurality of packages were executed includes the number at which the plurality of packages were executed in a preset period.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the order of the plurality of packages is obtained based on whether any of the plurality of packages is displayed on a screen by a second application different from the first application.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on completion of at least one of the plurality of packages, store, in the memory, a list of the plurality of packages of which a compile is completed.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
assign, to at least one first package included in the list among the plurality of packages, an order after another order assigned to a second package different from the at least one first package.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on the plurality of packages not being executed during a preset period, generate a second list different from the list which is a first list, and
exclude, from the order, any package of the plurality of packages included in the second list.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on identifying that the usage of the memory of the electronic device exceeds a preset threshold associated with the preset range, cease to compile the plurality of packages.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on identifying that the temperature of the electronic device is greater than or equal to a preset threshold associated with the preset range, cease to compile the plurality of packages.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on identifying that a state of charge (SOC) of the battery is decreased to be lower than a preset threshold associated with the preset range, cease to compile the plurality of packages.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed identifies at least one of time at which the plurality of packages were executed or a number at which the plurality of packages were executed.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein compiling one or more packages of the plurality of packages based on the frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed comprises:
identifying a time at which the plurality of packages were executed within a preset period.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein compiling one or more packages of the plurality of packages based on the frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed comprises:
identifying the number at which the plurality of packages were executed within a preset period.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein obtaining the order of the plurality of packages comprises:
obtaining the order based on whether any of the plurality of packages is displayed on a screen by a second application different from the first application.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
based on completion of at least one of the plurality of packages, storing, in the memory, a list of the plurality of packages of which a compile is completed.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
assigning, at least one first package included in the list among the plurality of packages, an order after another order assigned to a second package different from the at least one first package.
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes compilation based on order, range, and frequency, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0015-0076). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the order comprising:
based on the plurality of packages not being executed during a preset period, generating a second list different from the list which are a first list; and
excluding, from the order, any of the plurality of packages included in the second list.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite "sequentially compile … ; and in a state of sequential compiling …”. However, it is unclear whether the “sequentially compile” constitutes the “in a state of sequential compiling” or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 is directed to a product (e.g., "An electronic device comprising: ...”). For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Here, claim 1 recites that the "electronic device" comprises structural recitations of the "memory comprising one or more storage media storing a plurality of packages including instructions …" and “at least one processor comprising processing circuitry”. However, the claim also recites functions (e.g., “in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compile, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of the memory, a temperature, or a battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed”) where it is unclear what claimed structural recitations of the "electronic device" these functions are attributed to, if any. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 12 is directed to a process claim (e.g., “A method … comprising: …”). For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Claim 12, however, recites limitations where it is unclear whether the limitations define steps or acts to be performed. Specifically, Claim 12 recites “in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compiling, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of a memory, a temperature, or a battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed”. These limitations are passively or inferentially claimed, unlike the positively-recited steps (e.g. “executing …”, “based on execution … obtaining …”, etc.), making it unclear whether the limitations define steps or acts to be performed or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 20 is directed to a product (e.g., "A computer readable-storage medium storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, causes the processor of the electronic device to: …”). For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Here, claim 20 recites functions that are attributed to the "processor of the electronic device". However, the claim also recites functions (e.g., “in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compile, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of the memory, a temperature, or a battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed”) where it is unclear what claimed structural recitations these functions are attributed to, if any. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claims Free of Art
Claims 1-20 are free of art. The closest prior art of record is US 2021/0117168 A1 (“Jeong”). Jeong teaches:
executing a first application associated with a first type; (0091-0095, 0100, 0125, 0127)
based on execution of the first application, obtaining an order of a plurality of packages to compile instructions in a second type which are stored in a package; (0104-0108, 0115-0116)
sequentially compiling the plurality of packages based on the order; and (0060, 0088, 0109)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
in a state of sequential compiling of the plurality of packages based on the execution of the first application, compiling, in response to identifying that at least one of a usage of a memory, a temperature, or a battery of the electronic device is included in a preset range, one or more packages among the plurality of packages based on a frequency at which the plurality of packages were executed.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0269950 A1 (“Lu”) discloses: A device selectively executes native machine code of a computing method in an application. Prior to execution of the application, a predicted usage level of the computing method is determined based on available statistical analysis data of the computing method. According to a determination of whether the predicted usage level exceeds a threshold, a selector selects executable code of the computing method for execution. The executable code is the native machine code or bytecode of the computing method. When the computing method is called during execution of the application, the selected executable code is loaded from non-volatile storage into memory for execution by a virtual machine. Furthermore, runtime usage level of the computing method is monitored to determine whether to switch from bytecode to native machine code execution.
US 8,239,827 B2 (“Sobel”) discloses: A system and method for compiling part of the bytecode for a software application into native code at install time when the software application is installed on a particular computer are described. According to one embodiment of the method, usage information for the software application may be received. The usage information may indicate how frequently or commonly each of a plurality of features of the software application is used. The usage information may be analyzed to determine a rank ordering of the features. The method may further comprise installing the software application on the particular computer. Installing the software application may comprise compiling one or more bytecode modules of the software application into native code, where the one or more bytecode modules are selected from a plurality of bytecode modules depending upon the rank ordering of the features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights