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 .
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed Aug. 19, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “…provisioning power for a device according to power demands of a scheduled plurality of operating states of a device, the method comprising: obtaining data associated with a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states of the device prior to commencing operation of the device, the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions; and provisioning power for the device according to the power demand of the scheduled plurality of operating states.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “a device” should be “the device” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring back to previously define one, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(ii). a portion of the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “a scheduled plurality of operating states” should be “the scheduled plurality of operating states” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring back to previously define one, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences; and
(iii). a portion of the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the power demand of the scheduled plurality of operating states” has insufficient antecedent basis and is not clear what is referring back to because previously there is “power demands of a scheduled plurality of operating states” (see a portion of the first underlined portion of the claim limitation) and “a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states” (see a portion of the third underlined portion of the claim limitation), thus the claim should clearly define what is the portion of the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the power demand of the scheduled plurality of operating states” referring back to.
Dependent claims 17-19 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 16 as stated above because the dependent claims 17-19 are depending on the rejected independent claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation “…obtain data associated with a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states of a device prior to commencing operation of the device, the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions; and provision power for the device according to the power demand of the scheduled plurality of operating states.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the power demand of the scheduled plurality of operating states”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (2016/0294197) (hereinafter “Thompson”) in view of Ginnela et al. (2016/0116974) (“Ginnela”).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a system (10 in Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) for provisioning power for a device (device shown in Fig.1), the system configured to: obtain data associated with power demands of a boot event of the device (obtain data associated with power demands of boot event of the device using 32 in Fig.4 and steps shown in Fig.5; please refer to at least ¶ 9, 16 and 42) prior to commencing operation of the device (prior to another start or boot of the device; please refer to at least ¶ 9 and 43); and provision power for the device according to the power demands of the boot event (please refer to at least ¶ 28, 29 and 38-41).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states; the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions.
However, it is well known in the art that the boot event taught by Thompson includes a scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions to boot.
For supporting purpose, Ginnela discloses an example of a boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states (scheduled plurality of operating states representing boot sequence, which includes - “1) power on and boot ROM code execution, 2) bootloader, 3) kernel, 4) initialization process, 5) Zygote and Dalvik, 6) system server, and 7) boot completion.”; please refer to at least ¶ 55, 66 and 85); the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions (sequence of instructions to operate the boot sequence segments; please refer to at least ¶ 8, 9, 49, 66, 67 and 148).
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 Thompson with the teaching of Ginnela that the boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states; the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the operation of the boot event.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the power demands are determined for the boot event (power demands during the boot event are determined; please refer to at least ¶ 9, 16 and 42) in advance of commencing operation of the device (prior to start or boot the device; please refer to at least ¶ 9 and 43) to execute the sequence of instructions (executing the sequence of instructions during the boot event).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claims 1 and 2 above.
Thompson discloses the power demands are determined based on a simulation of the device (please refer to at least ¶ 10 and 38-41, which discloses monitoring power consumption in response to the event notification and stored power consumption information in charge state settings “76”, thus power demands are determined based on a simulation of the device) executing the sequence of instructions (executing the sequence of instructions during the boot event).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the boot event as explained in claim 1 above.
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the scheduled plurality of operating states correspond to operations to implement a program defined by the sequence of instructions, the operations performed by the device.
Ginnela discloses the scheduled plurality of operating states correspond to operations to implement a program defined by the sequence of instructions (operations to implement a program defined by boot sequence segments; please refer to at least ¶ 55, 66 and 85), the operations performed by the device.
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 Thompson with the teaching of Ginnela that the scheduled plurality of operating states correspond to operations to implement a program defined by the sequence of instructions, the operations performed by the device. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the operation of the boot event.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the device comprises a processor executing a deterministic sequence of instructions of a computer program (please refer to Tompson’s claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the system provisions power via one or more input power rails (one or more power rails connected to 36 and 38 in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the scheduled plurality of operating states (a scheduled operating states of “BOOT” as shown in Fig.4) respectively comprise a discrete beginning point and a discrete ending point (discrete beginning point and a discrete ending point of each of the “BOOT” as shown in Fig.4).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the scheduled plurality of operating states (a scheduled operating states of “BOOT” as shown in Fig.4; the function of “BOOT” required a plurality of operating states to start operating the computer, at least to be able to perform each of the hardware components and software components of the computer, which would be continuous transitions) comprise continuous transitions.
Regarding claim 12, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the system is configured to: determine a failure condition (a failure condition due to the battery charge state is not adequate, as stated in ¶ 43) in the operation of the device based on the power demands of the scheduled plurality of operating states (scheduled plurality of operating states of the boot event); and initiate a response to the failure condition (please refer to steps 98 and 100; and at least ¶ 43; which states “if the battery charge state is not adequate (at step 98), the process continues to step 100 where the embedded controller modifies the power transition event, such as by delaying boot until adequate charge is available in the battery to support boot”), wherein the response to the failure condition is initiated in advance of commencing operation of the device (operation of “BOOT”).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the power demands (power demands of “BOOT” as shown in Fig.4) are determined based on a demand power schedule (a demand power schedule of events “BOOT” as shown in Fig.4) and a provisioned power schedule (a provisioned power schedule of 32, such as current monitoring related to the events “BOOT” as shown in Fig.4).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the system is further configured to schedule execution (execution of the events 68 in Fig.4) of the scheduled plurality of operating states based on the power demands (based on the power demands of the “BOOT” event as shown in Fig.4; please refer to at least ¶ 28, 29 and 38-41).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 1 above.
Thompson discloses the system is further configured to schedule execution (execution of the boot event 68 in Fig.4) of the scheduled plurality of operating states (the scheduled plurality of operating states of the boot events) based on an energy availability (energy availability of the battery; please refer to at least ¶ 28, 29 and 38-41).
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood), Thompson discloses a method (Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) for provisioning power for a device (device shown in Fig.1) according to power demands of a boot event of a device (according to power demands associated with the boot event; please refer to at least ¶ 9, 16 and 42)), the method comprising: obtaining data associated with a power demand of the boot event of the device (obtain data associated with power demands of boot event of the device using 32 in Fig.4 and steps shown in Fig.5; please refer to at least ¶ 9, 16 and 42) prior to commencing operation of the device (prior to another start or boot the device; please refer to at least ¶ 9 and 43); and provisioning power for the device according to the power demand of the boot event (please refer to at least ¶ 28, 29 and 38-41).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states; obtaining data associated with a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states of the device prior to commencing operation of the device, the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions.
However, it is well known in the art that the boot event taught by Thompson includes a scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions.
For supporting purpose, Ginnela discloses an example of a boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states (scheduled plurality of operating states representing boot sequence, which includes - “1) power on and boot ROM code execution, 2) bootloader, 3) kernel, 4) initialization process, 5) Zygote and Dalvik, 6) system server, and 7) boot completion.”; please refer to at least ¶ 55, 66 and 85); obtaining data associated with a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states of the device (using 125 in Fig.1) prior to commencing operation of the device (prior to another start or boot the device after the monitoring power consumption during boot sequence as stated in at least ¶ 13, 14 and 23), the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions (sequence of instructions to operate the boot sequence segments; please refer to at least ¶ 8, 9, 49, 66, 67 and 148).
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 Thompson with the teaching of Ginnela that the boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states; the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the operation of the boot event.
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood), Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 16 above.
Thompson discloses the power demands are determined (using 32) for the scheduled plurality of operating states (a scheduled plurality of operating states of “BOOT” event as shown in Fig.4) in advance of commencing operation of the device (please refer to at least ¶ 10, 38 and 39) to execute the sequence of instructions (sequence of instructions during the boot event (please refer to support provided by Ginnela)).
Regarding claim 18 (as best understood), Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 16 above.
Thompson discloses the device comprises a processor executing a deterministic sequence of instructions of a computer program (please refer to Tompson’s claim 1).
Regarding claim 19 (as best understood), Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claim 16 above.
Thompson discloses the system is configured to: determine a failure condition (a failure condition due to the battery charge state is not adequate, as stated in ¶ 43) in the operation of the device based on the power demands of the scheduled plurality of operating states (scheduled plurality of operating states of the boot event); and initiate a response to the failure condition (please refer to steps 98 and 100; and at least ¶ 43; which states “if the battery charge state is not adequate (at step 98), the process continues to step 100 where the embedded controller modifies the power transition event, such as by delaying boot until adequate charge is available in the battery to support boot”), wherein the response to the failure condition is initiated in advance of commencing operation of the device (operation of “BOOT”).
Regarding claim 20 (as best understood), Thompson discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions (please refer to Tompson’s claim 1) to cause a system (Fig.1) to: obtain data associated with a power demand of a boot event of a device (obtain data associated with power demands of boot event of the device using 32 in Fig.4 and steps shown in Fig.5; please refer to at least ¶ 9, 16 and 42) prior to commencing operation of the device (prior to another start or boot the device; please refer to at least ¶ 9 and 43), and provision power for the device according to the power demand of the boot event (please refer to at least ¶ 28, 29 and 38-41).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose the boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states; obtaining data associated with a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states of the device prior to commencing operation of the device, the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions.
However, it is well known in the art that the boot event taught by Thompson includes a scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions.
For supporting purpose, Ginnela discloses an example of a boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states (scheduled plurality of operating states representing boot sequence, which includes - “1) power on and boot ROM code execution, 2) bootloader, 3) kernel, 4) initialization process, 5) Zygote and Dalvik, 6) system server, and 7) boot completion.”; please refer to at least ¶ 55, 66 and 85); obtaining data associated with a power demand of an operating state of a scheduled plurality of operating states of the device (using 125 in Fig.1) prior to commencing operation of the device (prior to another start or boot the device after the monitoring power consumption during boot sequence as stated in at least ¶ 13, 14 and 23), the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions (sequence of instructions to operate the boot sequence segments; please refer to at least ¶ 8, 9, 49, 66, 67 and 148).
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 Thompson with the teaching of Ginnela that the boot event consists of a scheduled plurality of operating states; the scheduled plurality of operating states corresponding to a sequence of instructions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the operation of the boot event.
7. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (2016/0294197) (“Thompson”) in view of Ginnela et al. (2016/0116974) (“Ginnela”) and Nibir et al. (2020/0295588) (“Nibir”).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claims 1 and 6 above.
Thompson discloses a battery charger (40 in Fig.2).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose a first voltage of the power provisioned to the device is lower than a second voltage provided by at least one input power rail of the one or more input power rails.
Nibir discloses a battery charger (102 in Fig. 1), wherein a first voltage (voltage at the output of 102, “VSYS/VOUT”) of the power provisioned to the device is lower (if using a battery charger with a buck mode; please refer to ¶ 14) than a second voltage (voltage at the input of 102, “VADP/VIN”) provided by at least one input power rail (power rail connected to 106) of the one or more input power rails.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of Ginnela with the teaching of Nibir to provide a first voltage of the power provisioned to the device is lower than a second voltage provided by at least one input power rail of the one or more input power rails. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a buck converter to provide power to the system as a design choice as supported by Nibir.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson in view of Ginnela is used to reject claims 1 and 6 above.
Thompson discloses a battery charger (40 in Fig.2).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose a first voltage of the power provisioned to the device is higher than a second voltage provided by at least one input power rail of the one or more input power rails.
Nibir discloses a battery charger (102 in Fig. 1), wherein a first voltage (voltage at the output of 102, “VSYS/VOUT”) of the power provisioned to the device is higher (if using a battery charger with a boost mode; please refer to ¶ 14) than a second voltage (voltage at the input of 102, “VADP/VIN”) provided by at least one input power rail (power rail connected to 106) of the one or more input power rails.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of Ginnela with the teaching of Nibir to provide a first voltage of the power provisioned to the device is higher than a second voltage provided by at least one input power rail of the one or more input power rails. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a boost converter to provide power to the system as a design choice as supported by Nibir.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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