Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states: “Thus, in the present application, the claims are far more similar to those of the well- established patentable subject matter analysis of Diamond vy. Diehr Diamond y. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (Diehr) than the claims of Alice. Applicant notes that this analysis has been reiterated in the “July 2015 update on Patent Eligibility” (generally referred to as Examination Instructions). Specifically, the claims of the present application are similar to the Examination Instructions example claims 25 and 27, both of which were indicated in the Examination Instructions as eligible subject matter.”.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. July 2015 update on Patent Eligibility example 25 is directed to rubber manufacturing and example 27 is directed to system software BIOS. The instant application is directed towards a system of classifying input based upon a user interacting with an information handling system. It is unclear as to how the limitations of the instant application relate to rubber manufacturing and system software BIOS, each of which incorporate distinct technological improvement. For this reason, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with further analysis below.
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 requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7, 13 and associated dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites classifying data based on received information.
Regarding independent claims the limitations classify an event, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: a primary integrated processor system, central processing unit, ancillary integrated processor system, ancillary SOC, and a microcontroller. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of providing a system and configuring do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data or providing a post-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a primary integrated processor system, central processing unit, ancillary integrated processor system, ancillary SOC, and a microcontroller, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to providing and monitoring of input the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 8, 14, 15, 20 the limitations of configuring, providing instruction to a user are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Regarding claim 3, 9 the limitation of configuring is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. The limitation of monitoring is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The limitation of the user interface is considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Regarding claim 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 the limitations of data user interface, details regarding the display further details about the event, instruction deployable to a client system, providing instructions as an ongoing basis, are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Gopalakrishnan (Pub. No. US 2020/0410630) in further view of Raidu (Pat. No. US 11,385,770).
Claim 1, 7, 13 Gopalakrishnan teaches “a computer-implementable method for performing a system event classification operation, comprising: providing an information handling system with a display, a primary integrated processor system and an ancillary integrated processor system ([0019] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example USB Type-C ecosystem 100 including a controller coupled to dynamically switch multiplexers between a first graphics mode and a second graphics mode, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. [0037] To begin, at a first block 501, the laptop with a connected embedded display is powered on. In embodiments, the connected embedded display includes a primary display of the laptop that is open. In embodiments, one or more multiplexers are in a default integrated graphics mode of the pre-OS phase. In embodiments, at a next block 503, BIOS notifies a microcontroller (e.g., EC) and EC notifies the controller, that multiplexers are to be switched to the discrete graphics mode after OS handoff.), the primary integrated processor system comprising a primary system on a chip (primary SOC), the primary SOC comprising a central processing unit ([0042] In embodiments, at least one of the processors 502 may be included in a System on Chip (SoC) that includes a USB Type-C subsystem and implements an integrated graphics controller which may be similar to, e.g., integrated graphics controller 108 of FIG. 1.), the ancillary integrated processor system comprising an ancillary system on a chip (ancillary SOC), the ancillary SOC comprising a microcontroller ([0042] In embodiments, at least one of the processors 502 may be included in a discrete graphics controller, such as discrete graphics controller 109 of FIG. 1. In embodiments, the discrete graphics controller may be in a graphics card or graphics chip separate from certain other processors 502.), the primary SOC and the ancillary SOC being contained within the information handling system ([0051] In various implementations, the computing device 600 may comprise one or more components of a data center, a laptop, a netbook, a notebook, an ultrabook, a smartphone, a tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an ultra mobile PC, a mobile phone, or a digital camera. In further implementations, the computing device 600 may be any other electronic device that processes data.), the primary integrated processor system executing a primary control point service on the central processing unit, the ancillary integrated processor system executing an ancillary control point service on the microcontroller; classifying a system event by a particular control point action mode; and, configuring the information handling system to automatically operate in the particular control point action mode based upon the classification of the system event ([0052] Accordingly, in embodiments, a method to implement a policy to dynamically switch between a first graphics mode and a second graphics mode as a primary source of a display signal to be provided to an external USB-C port is described. In embodiments, the method includes receiving, by a controller, an indication that the first graphics mode should be switched to the second graphics mode or the second graphics mode should be switched to the first graphics mode. The method further includes controlling, by the controller, at least a first or a second multiplexer to, based on the policy, switch to the first graphics mode to output signals received from an internal USB-C Type-C port of an integrated graphics controller to the USB-C port or switch to the second graphics mode to output the signals received from an internal USB-C Type-C port of a discrete graphics controller to the external USB-C port.)”.
However, Gopalakrishnan may not explicitly teach the new limitations.
Raidu teaches “an adaptive row display … the ancillary SOC controlling the adaptive row display ([Fig. 2A] icons configured in a first row) ... monitoring the information handling system for system event input information, the system event input information being provided via a user input with the information handling system ([Col. 8, Lines 58-65] (43) According to this example, the custom event is provided via touch sensor data received from the touch sensor system 103 indicating a received touch pattern 211a. According to some examples where the apparatus 101 includes a fingerprint sensor system 102, the received touch pattern 211a (or a received gesture pattern) may be received from the fingerprint sensor system 102.): … the particular control point action mode being associated with the system event input information ([Col. 8 Line 58 – Col. 9 Line 5] According to this example, the custom event is provided via touch sensor data received from the touch sensor system 103 indicating a received touch pattern 211a. According to some examples where the apparatus 101 includes a fingerprint sensor system 102, the received touch pattern 211a (or a received gesture pattern) may be received from the fingerprint sensor system 102. In this example, the custom event touch pattern 209a is a clockwise circular swipe, which the received touch pattern 211a approximates. The control system 106 may, for example, determine whether the received touch pattern 211a corresponds with a particular device operation by reference to a data structure that includes touch patterns and corresponding device operations. Various alternative examples of custom event touch patterns are described below with reference to FIGS. 3A-3F.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Raidu with the teachings Gopalakrishnan in order to provide a system that teaches different display configuration. The motivation for applying Raidu teaching with Gopalakrishnan teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, are analogous art directed towards processing events. Together Gopalakrishnan, Raidu teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Sepulveda with the teachings of Raidu by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, 8, 14 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Gopalakrishnan teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein: the configuring configures a mode of system operation, the mode of system operation defining which control point actions associated with a particular system event are respectively performed by one or both the primary control point service and the ancillary control point service ([0052] Accordingly, in embodiments, a method to implement a policy to dynamically switch between a first graphics mode and a second graphics mode as a primary source of a display signal to be provided to an external USB-C port is described. In embodiments, the method includes receiving, by a controller, an indication that the first graphics mode should be switched to the second graphics mode or the second graphics mode should be switched to the first graphics mode. The method further includes controlling, by the controller, at least a first or a second multiplexer to, based on the policy, switch to the first graphics mode to output signals received from an internal USB-C Type-C port of an integrated graphics controller to the USB-C port or switch to the second graphics mode to output the signals received from an internal USB-C Type-C port of a discrete graphics controller to the external USB-C port.)”.
Claim 4, 10, 16 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Raidu teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein: the display is included within a display chassis of the information handling system ([Col. 7, Lines 39-45] In this example, the apparatus 101 includes a display system 110 that includes one or more displays. In some examples, the display system 110 may be, or may include, a light-emitting diode (LED) display, such as an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display. In some such examples, the display system 110 may include layers, which may be referred to collectively as a “display stack.”); and, the adaptive row display is included within a base chassis of the information handling system ([Col. 8, Line 27-37] According to this example, icons 205 are being presented on the display 210. In this example, each of the icons 205 corresponds to a different software application or “app,” as indicated by the letters A-R. In this instance, icons 205 corresponding to apps A-I are being presented in the upper half 215a of the display 210 in icon rows 210a, 210b and 210c. Similarly, icons 205 corresponding to apps J-R are being presented in the lower half 215b of the display 210 in icon rows 210d, 210e and 210f. This configuration of icons is one example of what may be referred to herein as an “icon arrangement.”)”.
Claim/s 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishnan, Raidu in view of Sepulveda.
Claim 3, 9, 15 Gopalakrishnan may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Sepulveda teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein: the particular control point action mode includes configuration of an ancillary user interface (UI) ([0204] When operating in the companion-display mode, a control strip 197 that includes controls for changing display properties of the companion-display mode is displayed. The controls within the control strip 197 are represented by user interface elements 427-437, and each user interface element has a function for controlling an aspect of the companion-display mode.); the monitoring includes monitoring the ancillary user interface; and, the ancillary user interface provides the system event input information to the ancillary SOC (Raidu [Col. 8 Line 58 – Col. 9 Line 5] According to this example, the custom event is provided via touch sensor data received from the touch sensor system 103 indicating a received touch pattern 211a. According to some examples where the apparatus 101 includes a fingerprint sensor system 102, the received touch pattern 211a (or a received gesture pattern) may be received from the fingerprint sensor system 102. In this example, the custom event touch pattern 209a is a clockwise circular swipe, which the received touch pattern 211a approximates. The control system 106 may, for example, determine whether the received touch pattern 211a corresponds with a particular device operation by reference to a data structure that includes touch patterns and corresponding device operations. Various alternative examples of custom event touch patterns are described below with reference to FIGS. 3A-3F.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Sepulveda with the teachings Gopalakrishnan, Raidu in order to provide a system that teaches different display configuration. The motivation for applying Sepulveda teaching with Gopalakrishnan, Raidu teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Sepulveda, are analogous art directed towards processing events. Together Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Sepulveda teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Sepulveda with the teachings of Gopalakrishnan, Raidu by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 6, 12, 18 Gopalakrishnan may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Sepulveda teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein: the particular control point action mode includes at least one of a primary control point action mode, an ancillary control point action mode ([0219] In response to the input over function 436, FIGS. 4Y-1 and FIG. 4Y-2 depict the dock 412 moving into position on the display of the tablet device 100. The dock 412 from the laptop is moving into position in FIG. 4Y-1 (now referred to as a dock 439 when it is displayed on the tablet 100), as it floats over the control strip 197. In FIG. 4Y-2, the dock 439 has moved into its display position above the control strip 197. In some embodiments, the dock 439 may move the content on the tablet's display to make room for the dock. Alternatively, the dock 439 may overlay a portion of the content that is displayed on the tablet's display) and an augmented control point action mode, the primary control point action mode being a system mode of operation where the control point of a control point action is shared between the primary control point service and the ancillary control point service, the ancillary control point action mode being a system mode of operation where the control point for a control point action is performed solely by the ancillary control point service ([0222] FIG. 4BB illustrates a selection with pointer 190 at a toggle switch 427 for switching between different function modes for the control strip 197. In embodiments in which the dynamic function row 198 is concurrently displayed with the control strip 197 on the tablet's display, the toggle switch 427 may not be displayed within the control strip 197 at all.[0223] In response to the input at toggle switch 427 of FIG. 4BB, FIG. 4CC shows that a dynamic function row 198 is then displayed, which allows for controlling application-specific functions of a currently displayed application (e.g., for selecting photos within the photos application window 189).), the augmented control point action mode being a system mode of operation where the control point of the control point action is performed by a system that is not part of the information handling system ([0222] FIG. 4BB illustrates a selection with pointer 190 at a toggle switch 427 for switching between different function modes for the control strip 197. In embodiments in which the dynamic function row 198 is concurrently displayed with the control strip 197 on the tablet's display, the toggle switch 427 may not be displayed within the control strip 197 at all.[0223] In response to the input at toggle switch 427 of FIG. 4BB, FIG. 4CC shows that a dynamic function row 198 is then displayed, which allows for controlling application-specific functions of a currently displayed application (e.g., for selecting photos within the photos application window 189).)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 19, Gopalakrishnan may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Sepulveda teaches “the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system ([Fig. 4A] tablet 100) from a server system at a remote location ([Fig. 4A] 300 PC laptop.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 20, Gopalakrishnan may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Sepulveda teaches “the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis ([0166] In some embodiments, application 340-1 includes a plurality of event handlers 390 and one or more application views 391, each of which includes instructions for handling touch events that occur within a respective view of the application's user interface. Each application view 391 of the application 340-1 includes one or more event recognizers 380. Typically, an application view 391 includes a plurality of event recognizers 380. In other embodiments, one or more of event recognizers 380 are part of a separate module, such as a user interface kit (not shown) or a higher level object from which application 340-1 inherits methods and other properties. In some embodiments, a respective event handler 390 includes one or more of: data updater 376, object updater 377, GUI updater 378, and/or event data 379 received from event sorter 370. Event handler 390 optionally utilizes or calls data updater 376, object updater 377 or GUI updater 378 to update the application internal state 392. Alternatively, one or more of the application views 391 includes one or more respective event handlers 390. Also, in some embodiments, one or more of data updater 376, object updater 377, and GUI updater 378 are included in an application view 391.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim/s 5, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishnan, Raidu in view of Cho (Pub. No. US 2016/0179332) in view of Cavarra (Pub. No. US 2017/0280223).
Claim 5, 11, 17 Gopalakrishnan may not explicitly teach details regarding different events.
Cho teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein: the system event comprises at least one of a battery information display system event ([0134] The system/event information may include an icon (or graphic) relating to time 412, a residual amount level of a battery 413, applications on execution (execution of music or radio), reception of message, profile and alarm setting.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Cho with the teachings Gopalakrishnan, Raidu in order to provide a system that teaches different events. The motivation for applying Cho teaching with Gopalakrishnan, Raidu teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho are analogous art directed towards processing events. Together Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Gopalakrishnan, Raidu by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not teach the other event.
Cavarra teaches “a privacy mode mute system event ([0038] In response to the gesture event 430, the mobile computing device 440 may perform a predefined or custom action (such as a mute volume action 450) upon a software application, execute an operating system function, provide hardware control or management, or like actions. For example, if the gesture event 430 occurs from a single tap that corresponds to a “mute” gesture, then the mobile computing device 440 may implement the “mute volume” action 450 that causes a muting/unmuting command to be implemented with an audio playback software application 460 (e.g., a music or video player or other audiovisual software program) executing on the mobile computing device 440.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Cavarra with the teachings Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho in order to provide a system that teaches different events. The motivation for applying Cavarra teaching with Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho, Cavarra are analogous art directed towards processing events. Together Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho, Cavarra teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Cavarra with the teachings of Gopalakrishnan, Raidu, Cho by known methods and gained expected results.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights