DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 03-14-2025.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. It is also noted, that applicant has filed a certified copy on 08-29-2025 as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 contains the term “eh”, which is believed to be a typographical error.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites “a computer readable storage medium…". However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer media. Because the Specification fails to expressly describe the computer-readable storage medium to exclude transitory propagating signals, therefore, the claim is not directed to one of the four statutory categories “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”.
To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 a claim drawn to a computer readable medium that cover both non-transitory and transitory embodiments may be amended to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" before “computer readable storage medium". Such an amendment is not considered new matter. See the "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media" memo dated January 26, 2010 (OG Cite: 1351 OG 212; OG Date: 23 Feb 2010).
As per dependent claims 12-15, these claims do not cure the deficiencies found in the independent claim, are thus rejected for their dependency.
Claims Interpretation
Claims 1, 5-6, 11 and 15 recited the term “if”, of which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard make the expression following the term as optional limitation under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, thereby not narrowing the claim limitations following the term since they can be omitted. Indeed, Marriam-Webster defines the term “if” as a “conditional clause”. Similarly, the term “should” is also defined as a conditional clause because expresses the meaning “what is probable”. Other terms also found to be deficient are: may, might, can, could, potentially, possible ….etc. In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 and Ex parte Schulhauser, see MPEP 2111.04 (II)
Nonetheless, provided applicant does intend to have these limitations to have patentable weight, the claims above must positively recite the claim limitation without invoking optional language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0157311 (hereinafter, “Maisuria”).
As per claim(s) 1, 61, 112, Maisuria discloses a control method for an electronic device comprising:
determining a set time threshold in response to a user trigger input; (Fig. 2 illustrates a number of preset times, for example, t1, t2 and t3, for transitioning the system into different power state in response on whether the presence of the user is triggered. ¶s [0017]-[0019] and [0043]-[0044])
if a duration of the electronic device being in a first shutdown state and the time threshold meet a preset condition, controlling the electronic device to be in a second shutdown state (Fig. 2 illustrates how the system transitions from power state 1 to power state 2 (alternatively, from power state 2 to power state 3…etc) based on either t1, t2 and t3 time intervals)
if the electronic device is in the first shutdown state, causing a power module of the electronic device to provide power to a control system of the electronic device through a power circuit; and (While on power state 1, “Power to the CPUs and volatile memory, such as RAM, is maintained” ¶ [0035])
if the electronic device is in the second shutdown state, causing the power module of the electronic device to stop providing power to the control system and causing the electronic device to enter a power saving mode. (S2-S4 power states where power to the CPU is “powered off”. ¶s [0036]-[0038])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7,12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0157311 (hereinafter, “Maisuria”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0196836 (hereinafter, “Malpani”).
As per claims 2, 7, 12, Maisuria discloses a method wherein setting the time threshold includes: setting the time threshold on a setting of the electronic device; (t=1,2 or 3; Fig. 2)
storing the setting of the time threshold; and (t=1,2 or 3; Fig. 2)
controlling the electronic device to shut down to be in the first shutdown state based on a shutdown signal. (t=1,2 or 3; Fig. 2)
Maisuria does not disclose a setting interface.
However, Malpani discloses a setting interface. ( power saving settings and/or user preferences. ¶ [0063] )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maisuria and Malpani because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Malpani’s teaching of power saving setting based on user preferences would enhance Maisuria 's system by allowing power management to be customizable, thus enhancing user’s experience with the computer system.
As per claims 5, 15, Maisuria as modified discloses a control method further comprising: if it is determined that the user has not set the time threshold after obtaining the shutdown signal, (Malpani: default to a low power state ¶ [0045])
causing the electronic device to enter the second shutdown state after a duration of the first shutdown state reaches a fixed duration and/or a power level of a battery in the power module being less than a target threshold (Maisuria: Fig. 2 illustrates transitions to different power states based on different countdown timers)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maisuria and Malpani because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Malpani’s teaching of default low power state would enhance Maisuria 's system by allowing the system to automatically conserving power.
Claim(s) 3-4, 8-9, 13-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0157311 (hereinafter, “Maisuria”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0227377 (hereinafter, “Park”).
As per claims 3, 8, 13, Maisuria discloses a method, when the electronic device is in the second shutdown state, further comprising: based on a control signal, controlling the power module to exit the power saving mode to provide power to the control system through the power module, and start the control system, (¶s [0056]-[0057] discloses how the system may transition from S3/S4 power state to S0 power working state)
Maisuria does not distinctly disclose wherein the power module is configured to provide power to the control system after startup through the power circuit to control the electronic device to start up through the control system.
However, Park explicitly discloses the power module is configured to provide power to the control system after startup through the power circuit to control the electronic device to start up through the control system. (Abstract discloses how a user may command to turn on an automatic booting mode through a user interface unit, delivering data corresponding to an ON state of the automatic booting mode to a BIOS module. )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maisuria and Park because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Park’s teaching of providing power during a boot would enhance Maisuria's system by allowing the BIOS to ensure a hardware are initialized with power correctly, thus ensuring seamless operating with other computer functions.
As per claims 4, 14, Maisuria as modified discloses a control method wherein: based on a preset user operation, turning on a power wake-up circuit connected to eh power module to generate the control signal through the power wake-up circuit. (Maisuria: (¶s [0056]-[0057] discloses how the system may transition from S3/S4 power state to S0 power working state) & (Park: opening of the cover 101 is detected, the sensing unit 130 activates the fingerprint recognition sensor ¶ [0106] or alternatively ¶ 0080] where based on the cover position being open transitioning to higher power state)
As per claim 9, Maisuria as modified discloses a control device wherein: the power wake-up circuit is configured to start after a trigger unit detects a preset user operation and generate the control signal, the trigger unit being a power button of the electronic device or other preset buttons of the electronic device; and/or, (Park: ¶ [006] press of power button)
the trigger unit being configured to detect change of an attitude of the electronic device from being folded to unfolded to identify the user operation. (Park: angle cover; ¶ [0033)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maisuria and Park because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Park’s teaching of tracking power buttons and angle covers would enhance Maisuria's system by allowing the system to automatically transition to a optimal power state, thus enhancing power management of the computer system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0157311 (hereinafter, “Maisuria”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0227377 (hereinafter, “Park”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0077932 (hereinafter, “Houk”).
As per claim 10, Maisuria as modified does not distinctly disclose an electronic device the power module comprising: a battery, the battery being connected to the power circuit via a switch, the switch being close in the power saving mode; and the power control chip connected to the switch, the power control chip being configured to respond to the control signal and turn on the switch to control the power module to exit the power saving mode, wherein: the power wake-up circuit is connected to the battery and outputs the control signal based on a voltage of the battery; or,the power wake-up circuit is connected to a clock power supply in the electronic device, and outputs the control signal based on a voltage of the clock power supply.
However, Houk explicitly discloses an electronic device the power module comprising: a battery, the battery being connected to the power circuit via a switch, the switch being close in the power saving mode; and the power control chip connected to the switch, the power control chip being configured to respond to the control signal and turn on the switch to control the power module to exit the power saving mode, wherein: the power wake-up circuit is connected to the battery and outputs the control signal based on a voltage of the battery; or,the power wake-up circuit is connected to a clock power supply in the electronic device, and outputs the control signal based on a voltage of the clock power supply. (abstract discloses a switch for suppling power to components via a battery power supply)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maisuria as modified and Houk because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Houk’s teaching of controlling power via a switch would enhance Maisuria's as modified system by allowing preventing leakage power, thus enhancing power consumption of the computer system.
Conclusion
With respect to any newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP §714.02 and § 2163.06. For example, when responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per claim 6, Maisuria discloses the expression directed to a control module and a power module, the power module being connected to the control system via a power circuit. In particular, Maisuria discloses at least system on chip hardware, shared control agent, OS power manager that coupled together as illustrated by Fig 1. Further, Maisuria discloses at least one source of power, namely, either a “power supply unit” ¶ [0039] or a battery ¶ [0040]) Lastly, Maisuria further discloses the expression directed to “the control system being configured to respond to a user trigger input”. For example, the OS power manager to detect the presence of the user and decide whether triggers like power state changes to occur or not occur.
2 As per independent claim(s) 6 and 10, these claims are substantially equivalent to method claim 1, because the additional feature(s) are present on any off the shelf general-purpose computer. Therefore, for at least this reason, claims 6 and 10 also stand rejected. Indeed, at least <insert Figure(s) 1-5 of Maisuria further discloses the claimed memory for storing instruction that are further executed by a processor.
Prosecution Insights