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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 comprises the broad limitations “normal state” and “abnormal state”. For examination purposes, the determination of a battery being in either a “normal” or “abnormal” state will be based on a “temperature abnormality”, as described in paragraph [0042] of the originally filed Specification. A person of ordinary skill in the art will understand that a temperature abnormality represents either a component (battery, CPU, etc.) or the system/device reaching a temperature deemed dangerous or vulnerable to failure.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0123358, in view of Tan et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2024/0405587, in further view of Bacioccola, U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0244578.
Per Claim 1, Prabhakar discloses:
an electronic apparatus (computing device 102) configured to switch between an operating state and a sleep state (Paragraph 22; “the power mode state can be active, connected standby, or off”; Per the Background section of the instant Specification, the “Modern Standby” state, which is also commonly known in the art as “connected standby”, is known as and considered a “sleep state”.), the electronic apparatus comprising
a controller (usage tracking module 138) that executes polling to periodically check a state of a battery when the electronic apparatus is in the operating state (Paragraph 29; The remaining capacity of the battery cell(s) 136 at any given time can be readily determined in various manners. Paragraph 32; “In one or more embodiments, the usage tracking module 138 queries various components or programs (e.g., hardware components, operating system programs, etc.) at regular or irregular intervals to obtain the state settings. Querying is equivalent to polling.),
Prabhakar discloses querying a battery to determine a battery capacity (Paragraphs 29-34). Record 200, see Fig. 2 provided below, discloses that the battery capacity query occurs during both Active and Connected Standby power modes.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prabhakar further teaches receiving messages or notifications whenever there is a change to a particular one or more state settings of the computing device (Paragraph 32), but does not specifically teach the polling operation occurring in response to the notification.
However, Tan teaches a battery management controller 130 identifying a battery charge level by polling a battery management unit integrated with the battery in response to occurrences of events (Paragraph 55).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tan’s teaching of an occurrence-based polling operation with the battery state checking system of Prabhakar because it allows for timely notification regarding a current system state, allowing for dynamic power states (Tan, paragraph 57).
Tan does not specifically teach that the “occurrences of events” that trigger the battery management unit to poll the battery occur while the system is in a stand-by or sleep state.
However, Bacioccola teaches various polling modes, where a device enters a polling mode utilizing a second polling interval when the system/device is in a standby, low power, idle, or sleep mode (Paragraph 97). The second poll interval comprises lengthened polling intervals (Claim 4).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacioccola’s reduced polling interval during a sleep state with the teachings of Prabhakar/Tan, as combined above, because a reduced polling interval will contribute to the power savings of a sleep state by polling less often (Bacioccola; Paragraph 50).
Per Claim 2, Tan further teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification signal is in one of a first state and a second state, wherein the controller executes the polling if the notification signal is in the first state, and wherein the controller does not execute the polling if the notification signal is in the second state (Paragraph 55; In response to occurrences of events. One having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a signal used to represent the occurrence of the “event” would represent one of two states, either a first state where the notification of the event is active, or a second state where there is no event to provide a notification of, and therefore polling does not occur.).
Per Claim 7, please refer to the above rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar (apparatus vs. method embodiments) and the mapping of the references to the limitations is equally applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are 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.
- The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 3-5, no combination of Prabhakar, Tan, Bacioccola, and the prior art specifically teaches the actions of the notification signal based on a remaining battery level or an abnormality condition of the battery, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
U.S. PGPUB Numbers 2012/0221877, 2023/0114256, and U.S. Patent No. 9,146,601 teach adjusting the operation of an electronic device based on the charge level of the battery decreasing by a threshold amount or the charge level falling below a preset threshold. No combination of these references, Prabhakar, Tan, and Bacioccola specifically teach or make obvious the combination of limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5.
With respect to claim 6, Prabhakar discloses a power circuit that is connectable to an external power source and outputs power supplied from the external power source to the battery (Paragraphs 10, 17, 21, 27, AND 30; “external plug-in AC power source”; “the computing device 102 is running on AC power and the battery cell(s) 136 are being charged”). Prabhakar does not, either alone or in combination with Tan, Bacioccola, and the prior art, specifically teach controlling the polling operations based on the connection status of the external power source and the notification signal when the electronic device is in the sleep state.
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights