DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #17/967,081, filed on 09/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been examined.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a system comprising a hardware processor and two network interface devices. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 8 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 also claims a system, this one comprising two hardware processors, and three network interface devices. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to “receiving…operational telemetry measurements, including user-adjustable operational telemetry measurements for a client information handling system during routine monitoring intervals, including power analytics, software application analytics, and event viewer error logs, receiving a determined CO2 emissions value exceeding a non-eco-friendly state transition threshold value determined for the client information handling system and an indication of a failed hardware component, identifying… a remediation user instruction associated with the failed hardware component, determining… a relationship between changes in CO2 emissions values over a most recent monitoring period and changes in operation of the client information handling system causing a change in operational telemetry measurements over a prior monitoring period immediately preceding the most recent monitoring period, predicting…that replacement of the failed hardware component with a new replacement component of the hardware type having a known power efficiency value at the client information handling system, in combination with execution of the remediation user instruction at the client information handling system will cause a future determined CO2 emissions value for the client information handling system to fall below the non-eco- friendly state transition threshold value, generating an order instruction… to transport the new replacement component to the client information handling system, generate a replacement instruction to replace the failed hardware component with the new replacement component, and communicate the replacement instruction… to replace the failed hardware component with the new replacement component and to execute the remediation user instruction.” Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely a mental process. A human operator with access to the received telemetry measurements including user-adjustable measurements for monitoring intervals including the various information listed in the claim as well as receiving determined CO2 emissions values exceeding the non-eco-friendly states transition threshold could evaluate and analyze the data the change from the past monitoring period to the current monitoring period, predict that replacement of the failed hardware component with another component having a known power efficiency will cause the CO2 emissions value to be acceptable, and make a judgment or form an opinion regarding the actions to be taken including generating an order instruction to transport the replacement component and generate the remediation user interaction and replacement user instruction. The claims only automate the mental process using a computer. Therefore, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea, namely a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include one or more “a hardware processor executing computer readable code,” “a hardware processor executing computer readable code instructions of the CO2 emissions state remediation system,” one or more “network interface devices,” a “client information handling system,” and an “enterprise system component hub.” However, these recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims also include the additional elements of “receiving via a network interface device…,” “transmitting an order instruction via a network interface device to an enterprise system component hub…,” and “transmitting the remediation user instruction and a replacement user instruction for display to a user at the client information handling system….” These additional elements are considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include “input received operational telemetry measurements into a neural network algorithm to output…,” and “as an output from the neural network algorithm.” However, absent further detail, the use of the neural network, which includes no detail whatsoever as to any steps of how it is used, is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea in a particular environment. The examiner points the applicant to the August 2024 Updated Eligibility Guidance which gives clear examples of the incorporation of machine learning in eligible claims. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include one or more “a hardware processor executing computer readable code,” “a hardware processor executing computer readable code instructions of the CO2 emissions state remediation system,” one or more “network interface devices,” a “client information handling system,” and an “enterprise system component hub.” However, these recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims also include the additional elements of “receiving via a network interface device…,” “transmitting an order instruction via a network interface device to an enterprise system component hub…,” and “transmitting the remediation user instruction and a replacement user instruction for display to a user at the client information handling system….” These additional elements are considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more. The additional elements also include “input received operational telemetry measurements into a neural network algorithm to output…,” and “as an output from the neural network algorithm.” However, absent further detail, the use of the neural network, which includes no detail whatsoever as to any steps of how it is used, is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea in a particular environment. The examiner points the applicant to the August 2024 Updated Eligibility Guidance which gives clear examples of the incorporation of machine learning in eligible claims. Inputting data into an ML algorithm and getting an “output” from an algorithm that is being run by a computer is clearly automation of a mental process, as the computer is performing an algorithmic calculation using the data and outputting the result. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claims in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for receiving specific information, analyzing the information to identify a change over monitoring periods, predict that replacing the failed component with another specific component will cause the CO2 emissions to stay below a threshold amount, and generate transmit the orders and instructions for replacement. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered part of the abstract idea, as which values are used to determine the CO2 emissions value for each routine monitoring interval does not change the human operator’s ability to determine the values by mental analysis and using mathematics. Claims 3-7 are considered part of the abstract idea, as what type of component fails does not in any way affect the steps of the mental process, and these limitations could be considered non-functional descriptive language. Claims 9-14 are considered part of the abstract idea, as what instructions are given as part of the remediation and replacement instructions does not change the fact that the step of transmitting the remediation user instructions comprise generating of user instructions, a mental process, and then transmitting the instructions, which is considered conventional computer functioning. The instructions are not positively recited as being implemented, much less with any technical steps. Claim 16 is considered part of the abstract idea, as receiving a confirmation and generating further instructions can be part of a mental process. The actual “receiving” of the confirmation and the actual “transmitting” of the shipping instruction via the network interface device is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more. For claim 17, the training of the neural network, which only describes the data that is used for the training, absent further detail, is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea in a particular environment. The examiner points the applicant to the August 2024 Updated Eligibility Guidance which gives clear examples of the incorporation of machine learning in eligible claims. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more. Claims 18-20 are considered part of the abstract idea as what data is used to calculate the threshold value for each routine monitoring interval does not change the calculation/determination being able to be performed as part of a mental process.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have been addressed in the updated 101 rejection above. The arguments are all directed to the claims as amended.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626