DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (2016/0294197) (hereinafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a system (Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: a power source (external power supply connected to Fig.1 and 2; please refer to at least ¶ 14); a deterministic energy provisioning device (at least Fig.2 and 32 in Fig.4) coupled to the power source; and a load device (system components of the system shown in Fig.1, which consumes power during the power transition events “68” in Fig.6, which includes “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN”, “STREAM GAMES”, etc.; please refer to at least ¶ 14) configured to receive power from the deterministic energy provisioning device (received power from Vsys bus 38 in Fig.2; please refer to at least ¶ 34); a processor (12); and a non-transitory, computer-readable memory (14) storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (please refer to at least ¶ 27) comprising: determining a first amount of power demanded by the load device (for example – the amount of power demanded by the system components during the “BOOT” event) in a first scheduled operating state (for example – “BOOT”); provisioning, by the deterministic energy provisioning device, the first amount of power to the load device during the first scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 31, 35 and 36 for provisioning required amount of power for the “BOOT” event); determining a second amount of power demanded by the load device in a second scheduled operating state (for example – amount of power demanded by the load device during either one of the event “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”; please refer to at least ¶ 38-44), and provisioning, by the deterministic energy provisioning device, the second amount of power to the load device during the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 38-44).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the second amount of power being greater than the first amount of power.
However, the amount of power demanded by the load device over the events “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”) are depending on the usage amount and total time required to operate. Thus, it would have been obvious that the event such as “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” would have consume more power than the “BOOT” event, such as Thompson mentioned in ¶ 38 that “high-power-use application such as gaming application”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the second amount of power being greater than the first amount of power, as such would have been based on the power usage amount and the total time required to operate the event.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson discloses the first scheduled operating state (“BOOT”) and the second scheduled operating state (for example “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”) comprise a series of scheduled operating states (a series of schedule operating states of the corresponding event, which are set by application of the corresponding event) defined with respect to time.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson discloses the series of scheduled operating states comprises continuous transitions (for examples – “BOOTS” and “STREAM GAMES” required a series of schedule operating states operate in continuous transitions).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson discloses the series of scheduled operating states (series of schedule operating states of each of “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” event) is defined over deterministic time intervals.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson discloses a demand schedule (a demand schedule of each of “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” event) is associated with the series of scheduled operating states.
Regarding claim 6, Thompson discloses the demand schedule is based on at least one of a demand power schedule representative of a high performance condition of the load device (please refer to at least ¶ 39, which states “a current monitor 70 reads and stores the maximum current provided by the power manager to the processing components during the power transition event”, where “maximum current” is depending on a high performance condition of the load device) or a provisioned power schedule that is representative of a realizable energy configuration based on a minimum performance level of the second scheduled operating state.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson discloses a simulation component (32) configured to simulate performance of the load device in at least one of the first scheduled operating state or the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 31, 35, 36 and 38-44).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson discloses determining that the power demanded by the load device in the second scheduled operating state (for example - power demanded by the load device during “STREAM GAMES” event) exceeds the power provided by the power source occurs in advance of the load device operating in the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 39, 41 and 44).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses the second scheduled operating state (for example - power demanded by the load device during “STREAM GAMES” event) causes a peak demand load event (please refer to at least ¶ 41-44).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson discloses the operations further comprise: storing excess energy provided by the power source (external power supply connected to Fig.1 and 2) during the first scheduled operating state (“BOOT” event; please refer to at least ¶ 28); and provisioning, by the deterministic energy provisioning device, the excess energy stored during the first scheduled operating state to the load device during the second scheduled operating state (please refer to Fig.4 and at least ¶ 28, the battery stores the exceed energy provided by the power source and operate the second scheduled operating state).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson discloses a method (Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: determining a first amount of power demanded by a load device (for example – the amount of power demanded by the system components during the “BOOT” event) in a first scheduled operating state (for example – “BOOT” event); provisioning, by a deterministic energy provisioning device (at least Fig.2 and 32 in Fig.4), the first amount of power to the load device during the first scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 31, 35 and 36 for provisioning required amount of power for the “BOOT” event); determining a second amount of power demanded by the load device in a second scheduled operating state (for example – amount of power demanded by the load device during either one of the event “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”; please refer to at least ¶ 38-44); and provisioning, by the deterministic energy provisioning device, the second amount of power to the load device during the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 38-44).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the second amount of power being greater than the first amount of power.
However, the amount of power demanded by the load device over the events “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”) are depending on the usage amount and total time required to operate. Thus, it would have been obvious that the event such as “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” would have consume more power than the “BOOT” event, such as Thompson mentioned in ¶ 38 that “high-power-use application such as gaming application”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the second amount of power being greater than the first amount of power, as such would have been based on the power usage amount and the total time required to operate the event.
Regarding claim 12, Thompson discloses the first scheduled operating state (“BOOT”) and the second scheduled operating state (for example “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”) comprise a series of scheduled operating states (a series of schedule operating states of the corresponding event, which are set by application of the corresponding event) defined with respect to time.
Regarding claim 13, Thompson discloses the series of scheduled operating states comprises continuous transitions (for examples – “BOOTS” and “STREAM GAMES” required a series of schedule operating states operate in continuous transitions).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson discloses the series of scheduled operating states (series of schedule operating states of each of “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” event) is defined over deterministic time intervals.
Regarding claim 15, Thompson discloses a demand schedule (a demand schedule of each of “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” event) is associated with the series of scheduled operating states.
Regarding claim 16, Thompson discloses the demand schedule is based on at least one of a demand power schedule representative of a high performance condition of the load device (please refer to at least ¶ 39, which states “a current monitor 70 reads and stores the maximum current provided by the power manager to the processing components during the power transition event”, where “maximum current” is depending on a high performance condition of the load device) or a provisioned power schedule that is representative of a realizable energy configuration based on a minimum performance level of the second scheduled operating state.
Regarding claim 17, Thompson discloses a simulation component (32) configured to simulate performance of the load device in at least one of the first scheduled operating state or the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 31, 35, 36 and 38-44).
Regarding claim 18, Thompson discloses determining that the power demanded by the load device in the second scheduled operating state (for example - power demanded by the load device during “STREAM GAMES” event) exceeds the power provided by a power source occurs in advance of the load device operating in the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 39, 41 and 44).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson discloses the second scheduled operating state (for example - power demanded by the load device during “STREAM GAMES” event) causes a peak demand load event (please refer to at least ¶ 41-44).
Regarding claim 20, Thompson discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable memory (14 in Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (12), cause the processor to perform operations comprising: determining a first amount of power demanded by a load device (for example – the amount of power demanded by the system components during the “BOOT” event) in a first scheduled operating state (for example – “BOOT” event); provisioning, by a deterministic energy provisioning device (at least Fig.2 and 32 in Fig.4), the first amount of power to the load device during the first scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 31, 35 and 36 for provisioning required amount of power for the “BOOT” event); determining a second amount of power demanded by the load device in a second scheduled operating state (for example – amount of power demanded by the load device during either one of the event “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”; please refer to at least ¶ 38-44); and provisioning, by the deterministic energy provisioning device, the second amount of power to the load device during the second scheduled operating state (please refer to at least ¶ 38-44).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the second amount of power being greater than the first amount of power.
However, the amount of power demanded by the load device over the events “BOOT”, “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES”) are depending on the usage amount and total time required to operate. Thus, it would have been obvious that the event such as “UPDATE”, “VIRUS SCAN” or “STREAM GAMES” would have consume more power than the “BOOT” event, such as Thompson mentioned in ¶ 38 that “high-power-use application such as gaming application”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the second amount of power being greater than the first amount of power, as such would have been based on the power usage amount and the total time required to operate the event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. 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.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2836
Prosecution Insights