`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www. uspto.gov
`
` APPLICATION NO.
`
`14/294,059
`
`TILING DATE
`
`06/02/2014
`
`TIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEYDOCKET NO.
`
`CONTIRMATION NO.
`
`Robert Paul Morris
`
`PMORO162A
`
`4612
`
`The Caldwell Firm, LLC
`PO Box 59655
`Dept. SVIPGP
`Dallas, TX 75229
`
`STOYNOV, STEFAN
`
`2116
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`08/18/2015
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated “Notification Date” to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`pcaldwell @ thecaldwellfirm.com
`Icaldwell@ thecaldwellfirm.com
`
`PTOT.-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Page 1 of 142
`
`GOOGLEEXHIBIT 1063
`
`Page 1 of 142
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1063
`
`

`

`.
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`14/294 059
`Examiner
`
`MORRIS, ROBERT PAUL
`Art Unit
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`STEFAN STOYNOV
`
`2116
`
`sting,
`
`This application is abandonedin view of:
`
`1. &] Applicant's failure to timely file a proper reply to the Office letter mailed on 17 February 2015.
`(a) (A reply was received on
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`period for reply (including a total extension of time of
`month(s)) which expired on
`(b) JA proposedreply was received on
`, but it does not constitute a proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to the final rejection.
`(A proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection consists only of: (1) a timely filed amendment which places the
`application in condition for allowance; (2) a timely filed Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee); or (3) if this is utility or plant
`application, a timely filed Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. Note that RCEsare not
`permitted in design applications.)
`(c) DA reply was received on
`but it does not constitute a proper reply, or a bona fide attempt at a properreply, to the non-
`final rejection. See 37 CFR 1.85(a) and 1.111.
`(See explanation in box 7 below).
`(d)XJNo reply has been received.
`
`), which is after the expiration of the
`
`:
`
`3.00 Applicant's failure to timely file corrected drawings as required by, and within the three-month period setin, the Notice of
`Allowability (PTO-37).
`(a) J Proposed corrected drawings were received on
`after the expiration of the period for reply.
`(b) [] No corrected drawings have been received.
`
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`
`
`
`2. CF Applicant's failure to timely pay the required issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, within the statutory period of three months
`from the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85).
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`(a) (J The issue fee and publication fee,
`if applicable, was received on
`), which is after the expiration of the statutory period for payment of the issue fee (and publication fee) set in the Notice of
`Allowance (PTOL-85).
`is due.
`is insufficient. A balance of $
`(b) [J The submitted fee of $
`The issue fee required by 37 CFR 1.18 is $
`. The publication fee, if required by 37 CFR 1.18(d), is $
`(c) FJ The issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, has not been received.
`
`), whichis
`
`4. (J The letter of express abandonmentwhichis signed by the attorney or agentof record or other party authorized under 37 CFR
`1.33(b). See 37 CFR 1.138(b).
`
`5. FJ The letter of express abandonmentwhichis signed by an attorney or agent(acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR
`1.34) upon the filing of a continuing application.
`
`6. [] The decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference rendered on
`of the decision has expired and there are no allowed claims.
`
`and becausethe period for seeking court review
`
`7. &] The reason(s) below:
`
`On 08/12/2015 the examiner called the applicant's representative (Patrick Caldwell, Reg. No. 44,580) to inquire
`whether a reply wasfiled in response to the Office action mailed 02/11/2015. The applicant's representative
`confirmed that no reply wasfiled in response to the Office action mailed 02/11/2015.
`
`/STEFAN STOYNOV/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
`
`
`Petitions to revive under 37 CFR 1.137, or requests to withdraw the holding of abandonment under 37 CFR 1.181, should be promptlyfiled to minimize
`any negative effects on patent term.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-1432 (Rev. 07-14)
`
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150812
`
`Page 2 of 142
`
`Page 2 of 142
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O.BOX 1450
`-
`ALEXANDRIA VA 22313-1451
`
`PRESORTED
`FIRST-CLASS MAIL
`U.S. POSTAGE PAID
`POSTEDIGITAL
`NNNNN
`
`The Caldwell Firm, LLC
`PO Box 59655
`Dept. SVIPGP
`Dallas, TX 75229
`
`
`
`Courtesy Reminderfor
`Application Serial No: 14/294,059
`Attorney Docket No: PMOR0162A
`Customer Number: 92045
`Date of Electronic Notification: 02/11/2015
`
`This is a courtesy reminder that new correspondenceis available for this
`application. If you have not done so already, please review the
`correspondence. The official date of notification of the outgoing
`correspondencewill be indicated on the form PTOL-90 accompanying the
`correspondence.
`
`An email notification regarding the correspondence wassentto the following
`email address(es) associated with your customer number:
`pcaldwell@thecaldwellfirm.com
`Icaldwell@thecaldwellfirm.com
`
`To view your correspondenceonline or update your email addresses, please
`visit us anytime at https://sportal.uspto.gov/secure/myportal/privatepair.
`If you have any questions, please email the Electronic Business Center (EBC)
`at EBC@uspto.govor call 1-866-217-9197.
`
`Page 3 of 142
`
`Page 3 of 142
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www. uspto.gov
`
` APPLICATION NO.
`
`14/294,059
`
`TILING DATE
`
`06/02/2014
`
`TIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEYDOCKET NO.
`
`CONTIRMATION NO.
`
`Robert Paul Morris
`
`PMORO162A
`
`4612
`
`The Caldwell Firm, LLC
`PO Box 59655
`Dept. SVIPGP
`Dallas, TX 75229
`
`STOYNOV, STEFAN
`
`2116
`
`02/11/2015
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated “Notification Date” to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`pcaldwell @ thecaldwellfirm.com
`Icaldwell@ thecaldwellfirm.com
`
`PTOT.-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Page 4 of 142
`
`Page 4 of 142
`
`

`

` Attachment(s)
`
`Status
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/02/2014.
`L] A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b)X] This action is non-final.
`3)0] An election was made by the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`__; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)D1 Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)__ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)__ is/are objected to.
`
`9\[] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`nito/Aanww. uspto.dov/ atenis/init_ events/ooh/index.js
`
`or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspto. doy.
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Papers
`10)] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)] The drawing(s) filed on 06/02/2014 is/are: a)IX] accepted or b)_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacementdrawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a) All) Some** c)L Noneofthe:
`1.1] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.0] Copies ofthe certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PGT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*™ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
` 14/294,059 MORRIS, ROBERT PAUL
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA(FirstInventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2116STEFAN STOYNOV No
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended periodfor reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 GFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timelyfiled
`
`3) EC Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1)
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`:
`.
`4) Ol Other:
`2) CO Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20150204
`
`Page 5 of 142
`
`Page 5 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Specification
`
`The disclosure is objected to becauseofthe following informalities: It is
`
`suggested amending the first paragraph in the specification to accountfor the patent
`
`(US 8,745,418) issued from the parent application (with S/N 12/857,851).
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,745,418. Although the claims
`
`at issue are notidentical, they are not patentably distinct from each other becauseall
`
`claim limitations of claims 1 and 4-20 are disclosed in respective claims 1 and 3-18 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,418.
`
`"Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps.
`
`First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim
`
`in the later patent and determinesthe differences. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United
`
`States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1326, 52, USPQ2d 1590, 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Second, the court determines whetherthe differences in the subject matter between the
`
`two claims renderthe claims patentably distinct. Id. at 1327, 52 USPQ2d at 1595. A
`
`later claim that is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned
`
`patent is invalid for obvious-type double patenting. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431,46
`
`USPQ2d 1226, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from
`
`Page 6 of 142
`
`Page 6 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 3
`
`an earlier parent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the patent
`
`claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 255 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is
`
`anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus).” Eli Lilly and Company v
`
`Barr Laboratories, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, On
`
`petition for Rehearing en banc (decided: May 30, 2001).
`
`Claims 2-3, being dependent on claim 1, are rejected based on the same ground
`
`of rejection.
`
`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 requirementsof thistitle.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to a judicial exception (i.¢., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
`
`abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to an abstract
`
`idea.
`
`The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
`
`to significantly more than the judicial exception, as follows:
`
`Claim 1 recites steps, which are not associated/tied with particular machine, but
`
`merely represent actions which can be done by human, utilizing mental process. The
`
`recited "program component"(software) does not perform any "processing" or output
`
`any result(s) due to processing. Furthermore, it is noted that merely reciting "processing
`
`Page 7 of 142
`
`Page 7 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 4
`
`(data/information) by a program component” would not add additional meaningful
`
`limitation to the abstract idea because that would beroutine in any computer
`
`implementation.
`
`Same processstepsare recited in claim 20. The additional generic computer
`
`elements in the claim's preamble do not add additional meaningful limitation to the
`
`abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation.
`
`Similarly, claim 19, recites the same process steps performed by respective cost
`
`advisor component, cost monitor component, cost director component, and cost
`
`operations component. However, the specification does not exclusively define the cost
`
`advisor component, cost monitor component, cost director component, and cost
`
`operations component being hardware(i.e. machine). Thus, under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation the above-mentioned componentsare interpreted as being
`
`implemented in software per se. Accordingly, utilizing software components does not
`
`add additional meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine
`
`in any computer implementation.
`
`In addition, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`The claim(s) does/do notfall within at least one of the four categories of patent
`
`eligible subject matter because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant
`
`intends the term "computer readable medium’to include non-statutory matter. The
`
`applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended
`
`language and thus it is reasonable to interpretit to include all possible mediums,
`
`Page 8 of 142
`
`Page 8 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 5
`
`including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph 0130). The words "storing" and/or
`
`"recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation
`
`between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s)
`
`is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention
`
`and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or
`
`acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is
`
`not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and
`
`therefore not a composition of matter.
`
`The examiner suggests amending the claim to read as a “non-transitory
`
`computer-readable medium”.
`
`Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-16, and 18, are directed to routine data/information
`
`manipulation in any computer environment, thus, not including additional elements that
`
`are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`Same applies to claims 3, 10, 12, and 17 directed to routine energy
`
`measurements, network communications, user selection via interface, and detecting
`
`change in energy source, respectively.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`(a)
`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 whichit
`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.
`
`Page 9 of 142
`
`Page 9 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 6
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AlA 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 whichit 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 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AIA), first paragraph, asfailing to comply with the enablement requirement. The
`
`claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a
`
`wayas to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`
`connected, to make and/or usethe invention. The disclosure provides no support for a
`
`configuration operation(s).
`
`Claim 16, line 6, recites the phrase “configured to”.
`
`Similarly, claim 19, lines 6, 9, 12, and 15, recites the phrase “configured for”.
`
`No configurable element or step is disclosed, nor are any parameters and ranges
`
`of configuration disclosed such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
`
`accomplish "configuring" the elements claimed or determine the appropriate parameters
`
`which require "configuration."
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(0) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor orajoint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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.
`
`Page 10 of 142
`
`Page 10 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 7
`
`Claims 16 and 19 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 inventoror a joint inventor, or for pre-AlIA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claim 16, line 6, recites the phrase “configured to”.
`
`Similarly, claim 19, lines 6, 9, 12, and 15, recites the phrase "configuredfor".
`
`The "configured to” and “configured for’ language presentin the claims is
`
`indefinite in that the nature of what configuration operation intended to be covered by
`
`the claim language is not recited, nor are any parameters indicated for configuration.
`
`One ofordinary skill in the art looking at the claims would therefore not be able to
`
`clearly discern the metes and boundsofthe claim such that a determination of whether,
`
`or not, a device mayinfringe the claim may be properly made.
`
`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.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section madein this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`Page 11 of 142
`
`Page 11 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 8
`
`(bo) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application
`for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected underpre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(b) as being anticipated by Zwernemann etal., US Patent Appl. Pub. No.
`
`2007/0211743.
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 20, Zwernemann discloses a method and a computer-
`
`readable medium embodying a computer program, executable by a machine, for
`
`selecting a resource based on a measure of a processing cost (FIG(s) 1-4), the method
`
`comprising, and the computer program comprising executable instructions for:
`
`receiving resource information identifying a first resource and a second resource
`
`for processing by a program component(paragraph 0039);
`
`determining at least one of a first measure of a specified processing cost for the
`
`processing of the first resource and a second measureof the processing cost for the
`
`processing of the second resource (paragraphs 0040-0041);
`
`selecting one ofthe first resource and the second resource basedon the at least
`
`one of the first measure and the second measure (paragraphs 0042-0046); and
`
`identifying, to the program component, the selected one ofthe first resource and
`
`the second resourcefor processing (paragraphs 0045-0049).
`
`Regarding claim 19, Zwernemann discloses a system for selecting a resource
`
`based on a measure of a processing cost, the system comprising:
`
`Page 12 of 142
`
`Page 12 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 9
`
`a cost advisor component, a cost monitor component, a cost director component,
`
`and a cost operations component adaptedfor operation in an execution environment
`
`(paragraphs 0018-0019, 0039-0049, FIG(s) 2 and 4);
`
`the cost advisor componentconfigured for receiving resource information
`
`identifying a first resource and a second resourcefor processing by a program
`
`component (paragraph 0039);
`
`the cost monitor component configured for determining at least one of a first
`
`measure of a specified processing cost for the processing ofthe first resource and a
`
`second measure of the processing cost for the processing of the second resource
`
`(paragraphs 0040-0041);
`
`the cost director component configured for selecting one ofthe first resource and
`
`the second resource based on the at least one of the first measure and the second
`
`measure (paragraphs 0042-0046); and
`
`the cost operations component configured for identifying, to the program
`
`component, the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resourcefor
`
`processing (paragraphs 0045-0049).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein at least a
`
`portion of the resource information is received in response to processing the first
`
`resource by the program component(paragraph 0039).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein the at
`
`least one of the first measure and the second measureincludesat least one of a
`
`measureof electrical power, a measure of electrical energy, a measure of stored
`
`Page 13 of 142
`
`Page 13 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 10
`
`energy, a measure of mechanical resistance, a measureor electrical resistance, a
`
`measureof time, a count of a particular event, a measure of monetary cost, a measure
`
`of heat, a measureoflight, a measure of distance, a measure of mass, a measure of
`
`size, and a measure of weight (paragraphs 0016, 0017, and 0047).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Zwernemann further discloses the method, as per claim 4,
`
`wherein the count is based on at least one of processor cycles, disk spins, data read
`
`operations, data write operations, refreshes of at least a portion of a presentation space,
`
`display refreshes, data transmitted via a network, data received via a network, anda
`
`measure of human movement (paragraphs 0016, 0017, and 0047).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein a metric
`
`for measuring the processing cost is determined based on at least one ofthe first
`
`resource, the second resource, and operation, a hardware component, the program
`
`component, a user, a group, a role, a task, a time, a location, a device performing the
`
`operation, and a devicefor providing the resource (paragraphs 0020-0049, FIG(s) 3 and
`
`4).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein
`
`determining at least one of the first measure and the second measureis based on a
`
`previous determination of a measure of a processing cost (paragraph 0018).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein
`
`determining at least one of the first measure and the second measure ids based on
`
`locating a predefined measure basedon at least one of the first resource, the second
`
`resource, and the program component (paragraphs 0020-0049, FIG(s) 3 and 4).
`
`Page 14 of 142
`
`Page 14 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding claim 11, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein the
`
`selecting comprises:
`
`comparing the first measure and the second measure; and
`
`selecting one ofthe first resource and the second resource based on the
`
`comparing (paragraphs 0018-0049, FIG(s) 2-4).
`
`Regarding claim 13, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein the
`
`selected one ofthe first resource and the second resourceis identified to the program
`
`componentfor processing instead the not selected one ofthe first resource and the
`
`second resource currently being used (paragraphs 0044-0049).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein the
`
`selected one ofthe first resource and the second resourceis identified to the program
`
`componentfor processing in addition to the not selected one ofthe first resource and
`
`the second resource currently being processed by the program component(paragraphs
`
`0044-0049).
`
`Regarding claim 15, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein
`
`identifying the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resourceto the
`
`program component comprises:
`
`disabling access, for the program component, to the not selected one ofthe first
`
`resource and the second resource; and
`
`enabling access, for the program component, to the selected one ofthe first and
`
`the second resources (paragraphs 0044-0049).
`
`Page 15 of 142
`
`Page 15 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding claim 16, Zwernemann further discloses the method wherein
`
`identifying the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resourceto the
`
`program component comprises:
`
`providing for terminating at least one of the program component and a
`
`processing of an unselected one ofthe first resource and the second resource by the
`
`program component; and
`
`subsequently at least one of restarting the program component configured to
`
`process the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resource and starting
`
`processing to process the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resource
`
`(paragraphs 0044-0049).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousnessrejections setforth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized asfollows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences betweenthe prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`Page 16 of 142
`
`Page 16 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 13
`
`4. Considering objective evidence presentin the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 3, 7, 10, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Zwernemann et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2007/0211743 in
`
`view of Fadell, US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0010857.
`
`Regarding claims 3, 7, 10, 12, 17, and 18, Zwernemann discloses the method, as
`
`per claim 1.
`
`With regardsto claim 3, Zwernemann does not specifically state the processing
`
`cost is measured based on energy received from at least one of a battery and an
`
`energy sourcefor charging a battery.
`
`With regardsto claim 7, Zwernemann doesnot specifically state the at least one
`
`of the first measure and the second measureis determined in responseto a user input
`
`for measuring the processing cost.
`
`With regards to claim 10, Zwernemann doesnotspecifically state determining at
`
`least one ofthe first measure and the second measure comprises: sending a message
`
`via a network to a node for determining at least one of the first measure and the second
`
`measure; and receiving a responsevia the networkidentifying at least one of the first
`
`measure and the second measure.
`
`With regardsto claim 12, Zwernemann doesnot specifically state the selecting
`
`comprises: communicating with an output device to presenta first selectable
`
`representation of the first resource and a second selectable representation of the
`
`second resource to a user; receiving selection information identifying one of the first
`
`Page 17 of 142
`
`Page 17 of 142
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/294,059
`Art Unit: 2116
`
`Page 14
`
`resource and the second resource, in response to a detected user input; and selecting
`
`the identified resource.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Zwernemann doesnot specifically state at least one of
`
`receiving the resourceinformation, determining at last one of the first measure and the
`
`second measure, selecting the one offirst resource and the second resource, and
`
`identifying the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resourceis performed
`
`in response to at least one of detecting a change in a first energy source, receiving
`
`energy fromafirst energy source then receiving energy from a second energy source,
`
`detecting that energy is flowing to a first source increasing the amountof energy stored
`
`in the first source, and detecting a change in an amountof energy available fromafirst
`
`energy source.
`
`Regarding claim 18, Zwernemann doesnotspecifically state at least one of
`
`receiving the resource information, determining at last one of the first measure and the
`
`second measure, selecting the one offirst resource and the second resource, and
`
`identifying the selected one ofthe first resource and the second resource is performed
`
`in response to a change in at least one of monetary cost of energy, and organization
`
`providing energy, a rate of energyutilization, a utilization time of a first energy source, a
`
`user, a geospatial location, heat, light, and a component for at least one of storing,
`
`transmitting, and receiving energy.
`
`Fadell teaches systems and methods for controlling the performanceof
`
`electronic device operations based on the power cost associated with the operations
`
`(paragraph 0001). Fadell further teaches each processor ope