DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
Contingent limitations- MPEP 2111.04 states:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”.
Claim 5 is directed to a method claim. Claim 5 includes a contingent limitation of “… determining whether the calculated total memory usage exceeds a threshold; and restarting at least one of the one or more extracted processes in a case where the total memory usage is determined to exceed the threshold”(emphasis added).
Under the BRI, only one condition needs to be met due to the contingent limitations. Applicant is advise to amend the claim to positively recie the limitation and avoiding contingent language in the claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first acquisition unit, second acquisition unit, extraction unit, calculation unit determination unit, restart unit of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa, US 20140108762 A1 in view of Myric 20160357572
Regarding Claim 1 , Fujisawa teaches an information processing apparatus [Fig. 1-14] comprising at least one memory and at least one processor [Fig. 1 and 3, par. 26-27,] and which function as:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a first list containing information about each of processes in a set configured to be restarted [par. 37, step 502, load the program file 401 of the application for which the activation instruction has been issued
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a second list containing information about each of processes in a set in operation [ Fig. 5-6, step 503 acquires the manifest part 402, Fig. 4, show the manifest of loaded application A; par. 37 and 35];
an extraction unit configured to extract one or more processes about which information is contained in the first list, from the set of processes about which information is contained in the second list [ [par. 39, Fig. 5, step S506 the application management unit 307 acquires, from the used memory size declaration table 308, a total value of used memory sizes declared by applications that are currently activated, par. and 33 and 37, the object generation unit 303 generates objects in accordance with instructions of program codes executed by the bytecode from the manifest]
a calculation unit configured to calculate total memory usage of each of the one or more processes extracted by the extraction unit [step 507, calculated total memory usage by adding total of MaxMemory Usage with total value used by application, par. 39,
a determination unit configured to determine whether the total memory usage calculated by the calculation unit exceeds a threshold; [ S507, par. 39, compare the calculated value to heap memory; par. 32, heap memory is the amount of memory allocated to Java VM for use by the application]
where the determination unit determines that the total memory usage exceeds the threshold, end application start process [S507, calculated total usage is not less than heap memory, i.e. total usage exceed threshold, S507 = NO, go to step 511 and end start process] .
Fujisawa does not explicity state to restart the one ore more process when the usage is greater than the threshold and end the activation process but does not teach restarting. Fujisawa further teaches [par. 33-34] tracking the memory declared for use by applications and include application life cycles, such as installation, activation, shutdown, and uninstallation of applications, thus suggest that the is a restarting.
In addition, Myrick teaches a memory management process where memory usage is greater than a threshold, processing logic performs a system level reboot, thereby terminate and reloaded the program [Fig. 3, steps 305-306, par. 37]. The reboots may cause certain memory used by certain programs (e.g., memory leaks) to be released to reduce the overall memory usage [ par. 17]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reboot and terminate the program as taught by Myrick to ensure that memory leaks are released to reduce the overall memory usage and improve the operation of the system [par. 17]
Claim 3. Fujisawa teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates a sum of physical memory usage and swap memory usage as the total memory usage [par. 33-34 a total value of memories declared for use by applications and include application life cycles, such as installation, activation, shutdown, and uninstallation of applications 206 and 207. The used memory size declaration table 308 holds the sizes of memories that have been declared for use by the applications being executed on the application platform]
Claim 5 and 6, Fujisawa teaches a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium carried out the steps of claim 1 and therefore rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 (s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa, in view of Myrick and further in view of Fujisawa; US 20140366034 (referred to as Fujisawa-B).
Claim 2. Fujisawa in view of Myrick teaches information processing apparatus according to claim 1,but does not specify first list at least contains information about a process of a web browser. Fujisawa teaches the device is a network device and the program is provided to the computer for example via a network [par. 27 and 77].
In addition, Fujisawa-B teaches a list t least contains information about a process of a web browser [Fig. 13, par. 97-101, Browser 1301, HTTP server app 1302-1302, the browser 1301 transmits a HTTP request to the HTTP server app 1302 through a network].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Fujisawa-B to use a browser in order .to expand the usage of the image to connect to a mobile device via network to increase the accessibility of the MFP [par. 4 and 97].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-4147. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAWEED ABBASZADEH can be reached at (571)270-1640. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIM HUYNH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights