DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/11/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application claims priority of Korean Patent Application (KR 10-2006-0111790) filed on Nov 13, 2006. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 & 05/27/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. The cite no. 4. In information disclosure statement filed 05/27/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recite “CPU” and “GPU” which are abbreviation. The first occurrence of all acronyms or abbreviations should be written out for clarity, whether or not they may be considered well known. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
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: “operating module” for (determine an operation mode) in claims 1 and 8.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Claim limitation “operating module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-8 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. Claim limitation “operating module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 20090089782 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8:
Johnson teaches an operating method of an operating system for power-aware smart aids to navigation, including service blocks implemented through a microservice architecture and independently operated in a container environment, the operating method comprising: (An operating system for power-aware smart aids to navigation, including service blocks implemented through a microservice architecture and independently operated in a container environment, the operating system comprising: a processor; and an operating module independently operated in a container environment executed by the processor, wherein the operating module is configured to) (By disclosing, [0002] An operating system ("OS") is a program that acts as an intermediary between a user of a computer system and the computer hardware. The purpose of an operating system is to provide an environment in which a user can execute application programs in a convenient and efficient manner. A computer system has many resources (hardware and software) that may be required to solve a problem, e.g., central processing unit ("CPU") time, memory space, file storage space, input/output ("I/O") devices, etc. The operating system acts as a manager of these resources and allocates them to specific programs and users as necessary.)
determining an operation mode of the operating system for power-aware smart aids to navigation by using an operating module, based on a power supply state; and selecting control target service blocks from among the service blocks in the determined operation mode by using the operating module. (By disclosing, [0021] In one embodiment of the invention, the processor information (116) may include one or more of the following pieces of information: (i) processing states supported by the processor, where each processing state corresponds to a specific operating frequency of the processor (i.e., clock speed of processor); (ii) power consumption at each processing state for each processor; (iii) current processing state of each the processor (i.e., current clock speed of processor); and (iv) the amount of power (kilowatt-hours) each processor is currently consuming. [0042] In Step 400, a thread to dispatch is received by the dispatcher. In Step 402, sensor information and/or utilization data is optionally obtained. Examples of sensor information include processor temperature, power consumption of processor, power consumption of cooling mechanisms, etc. In Step 404, the processing state for each of the processors in the system is obtained. In Step 406, the dispatcher determines the processor to which to dispatch thread based on the processing states, sensor information (if available), performance data (if available), and the power management policy (i.e., the power management policy currently being applied by the dispatcher). The dispatcher may also take into account the relative computing requirements of the thread (e.g., high, medium, low) and the historical processor utilization of the thread or similar threads (e.g., threads from the same application)In Step 500, performance data is obtained. In Step 502, a determination is made about whether there is excess processing power. In one embodiment of the invention, this determination is made based on the utilization data and the power management policy currently being applied by the dispatcher. For example, the utilization data may indicate that the available processors (i.e., processors that are powered up) are busy 50% of the time (over a given period of time) (i. e., the available processors are not executing threads 50% of the time). Further, the power management policy may specify that once the available processors are less than 75% busy, the processing power must be reduced 25%. The decrease in processing power may correspond to migrating threads to a subset of the available processors, powering down previously powered up processors and/or changing the processing state of a currently powered up processor to decrease its clock speed. In Step 504, if there is excess processing power (as defined by the power management policy), then the excess processing power is decreased in accordance with the power management policy. This process then ends. See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047])
Regarding Claim 3:
Johnson teaches limitations shown above. Johnson further teaches wherein the selecting the control target service blocks from among the service blocks comprises selecting the control target service blocks, based on a significance of each of the service blocks and the amount of use of resources of each service block. ([0027] Example Power Management Policy 3--This policy defines how to dispatch threads based on the processing state of each of the processors in the system. For example, as processing state of a given processor changes, this information is used by the dispatcher to dispatch threads in a manner that maximize performance. For example, consider a system that includes two processors: processor 1 and processor 2. Processors 1 and 2 are initially operating at fill power. Based on another power management policy (e.g., Example Power Management Policy 2), power supplied to processor 2 is decreased resulting in processor 2 transitioning to a slower processing rate (i.e., operating at a decreased clock speed). The dispatcher is notified of this change and when a subsequent high priority computing intensive thread is to be dispatched, the dispatcher sends the thread to processor 1 as opposed to processor 2. Similarly, if a low priority thread is to be dispatched, the dispatcher may send the thread to processor 2 so as to reserve processor 1 for processing of high priority threads. The processing state of each of the processors may be sent to the dispatcher via a notification mechanism, when a processing state of a given processor changes. In this manner, the dispatcher can rapidly adjust the manner in which threads are dispatched to continue to maximize performance. See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047])
Regarding Claim 4:
Johnson teaches limitations shown above. Johnson further teaches wherein selecting the control target service blocks from among the service blocks comprises selecting the control target service blocks when the significances are equal to one another, based on a priority determined based on the amount of use of resources. ([0027] Example Power Management Policy 3--This policy defines how to dispatch threads based on the processing state of each of the processors in the system. For example, as processing state of a given processor changes, this information is used by the dispatcher to dispatch threads in a manner that maximize performance. For example, consider a system that includes two processors: processor 1 and processor 2. Processors 1 and 2 are initially operating at fill power. Based on another power management policy (e.g., Example Power Management Policy 2), power supplied to processor 2 is decreased resulting in processor 2 transitioning to a slower processing rate (i.e., operating at a decreased clock speed). The dispatcher is notified of this change and when a subsequent high priority computing intensive thread is to be dispatched, the dispatcher sends the thread to processor 1 as opposed to processor 2. Similarly, if a low priority thread is to be dispatched, the dispatcher may send the thread to processor 2 so as to reserve processor 1 for processing of high priority threads. The processing state of each of the processors may be sent to the dispatcher via a notification mechanism, when a processing state of a given processor changes. In this manner, the dispatcher can rapidly adjust the manner in which threads are dispatched to continue to maximize performance. See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047])
Regarding Claim 6:
Johnson teaches limitations shown above. Johnson further teaches wherein selecting the control target service blocks from among the service blocks comprises selecting the control target service blocks, based on parameters including a significance of each service block, the amount of use of resources, and the amount of power consumption of each service block. (See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047])
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20090089782 A1) in view of Dow et al. (US 9575554 B1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Johnson teaches limitations shown above. Johnson further teaches wherein the operation mode comprises: a high performance mode; a middle performance and a low power mode of activating only service blocks associated with a core sensor and a communication module among the service (By disclosing, In Step 406, the dispatcher determines the processor to which to dispatch thread based on the processing states, sensor information (if available), performance data (if available), and the power management policy (i.e., the power management policy currently being applied by the dispatcher). The dispatcher may also take into account the relative computing requirements of the thread (e.g., high, medium, low) and the historical processor utilization of the thread or similar threads (e.g., threads from the same application). (See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047])
Johnson does not specifically disclose wherein the operation mode comprises: a high performance mode of operating all of the service blocks with maximum performance in an environment where a sufficient sunlight power is predicted; a middle performance mode of operating to activate essential service blocks and deactivate unessential service blocks among the service blocks in an environment where a sunlight power is uncertain; and a low power mode of activating only service blocks associated with a core sensor and a communication module among the service blocks in an environment where a sunlight power is insufficient. However Dow teaches monitoring operating states while predicting sunlight power while sunlight is source of energy. (By disclosing, In the exemplary embodiment, the battery 175 is a rechargeable battery that is coupled to an external renewable-energy power source 180, such as a solar panel for example. The power source 180 provides electrical power to the battery 175 on a periodic or aperiodic basis to replenish the energy consumed by the sensor 100 during operation. As discussed in more detail herein, some of the embodiments provide for the sensor 100 to have at least two operating states, such as an operating power state and a low power state. In the operating power state, the sensor 100 is operating and performing functions such as acquiring measurements from the measurement devices 145 and transmitting or receiving signals via interface 160.(19) In the low power state, the sensor 100 performs with reduced functionality to conserve energy stored within battery 175. In an embodiment, when in the low power state, the sensor 100 operates a timer 185 that tracks time periods and initiates a change in the sensor 100 to the operating power state based upon predetermined criteria. In an embodiment, the change in state is initiated using an interrupt transmitted to the processor 105. In an embodiment, the weather information may be received by the sensor 100 and used to determine how often observations are acquired. In an embodiment, the weather data may be used to predict the amount of solar gain that the solar panel 180 will receive during an upcoming time period (e.g. the next day). Based on the expected amount of energy that the battery 175 will receive from the solar panel 180, the time period may be arranged to ensure that the sensor 100 does not deplete the battery 175 due to the acquisition of observations and transmission of signals. See at least col 5-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determine performance as disclosed by Johnson with the technique of predicting sunlight power as disclosed by dow because it will allow to use renewable energy source for operations. Furthermore, merely combining well known elements in the prior art with predictable results does not render an invention patentably distinct over such combination.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20090089782 A1) in view of Okamura et al. (US 20240193003 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Johnson teaches limitations shown above. Johnson further teaches wherein the amount of use of resources of each service block comprises amount of power consumption of relevant hardware. (See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047]) Johnson does not specifically disclose wherein the amount of use of resources of each service block comprises a CPU share ratio, a GPU share ratio. However Okamura teaches the amount of use of resources of each service block comprises a CPU share ratio, a GPU share ratio. (By disclosing, he performance of the arithmetic device 105 indicated in the arithmetic device performance information includes a calculation capability indicating the calculation capability (specifically, a maximum calculation capability) of the arithmetic device 105, a ratio of the CPU and the GPU in the arithmetic device 105, and the like. (see at least paragraphs [0052]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determine performance as disclosed by Johnson with the technique of using a CPU share ratio, a GPU share ratio as disclosed by Okamura because to determiner performance to complete specific tasks efficiently. Furthermore, merely combining well known elements in the prior art with predictable results does not render an invention patentably distinct over such combination.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20090089782 A1) in view of Ermenko et al. (CN 106462215 A).
Regarding Claim 7:
Johnson teaches limitations shown above. Johnson further teaches wherein selecting the control target service blocks from among the service blocks is to select the control target service block based on significance of each service block, the amount of use of resources, and the amount of power consumption. (See at least paragraphs [0021]-[0047]) Johnson does not specifically disclose wherein selecting the control target service blocks from among the service blocks is to select the control target service blocks, based on a service priority score, and wherein the service priority score is calculated to be a weight sum of a significance of each service block, the amount of use of resources, and the amount of power consumption. However Ermenko teaches wherein the service priority score is calculated to be a weight sum of a significance of various factors. (By disclosing, a plurality of power consumer module preferably has an operating power state, so that these states can have different user experience score. Similarly, power consumer module priority scores can be not only depends on the module, also depending on the module power state. Preferably, the portion of context aware power budget allocated to the power consumer modules to create a high overall user experience score, but additionally or alternatively may distribute power using any suitable method. a module controller 120 can distribute power mode relates to the power amount for the module/power state combination of module priority weighting, and to optimize for higher total score (the total score is a sum of weighted scores) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determine performance as disclosed by Johnson with the technique of priority score is calculated to be a weight sum of a significance of various factors. as disclosed by Ermenko for efficient resource allocation. Furthermore, merely combining well known elements in the prior art with predictable results does not render an invention patentably distinct over such combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights