DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 03/18/2026, are accepted.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 14, 19, and 20 have been amended.
In consideration of Applicant’s arguments (Pg. 9, III) regarding rejection of Claims 1-4 and 7-20 under provisional non-statutory double patenting. Examiner withdraws rejection based on Applicant’s amended claim limitations, which differentiate the claimed invention from the invention claimed in co-pending Application #18/063,716, and in view of secondary references.
In consideration of applicant’s amendments, specifically to independent claims 1, 19, and 20, Examiner finds language necessitates further search and evaluation. Further consideration of claim limitations has resulted in new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as detailed below.
In consideration of Claims 1-4 and 7-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), Examiner finds arguments are persuasive. Based on amended claim language adding specificity limitations as currently amended differentiate the claimed invention over prior art. Detailed explanation regarding allowable subject matter is presented 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 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims as currently amended fall into one of the statutory categories as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP § 2106.03) using Step one of eligibility analysis. (MPEP § 2106.03).
Independent Claim 1 is held to be patent ineligible, with step by step evaluation of eligibility explained below.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites abstract concepts (emphasis in bold added): “detect an overcurrent or undervoltage condition”, “orchestrator is configured to receive a message” “data processed by the aDSP” “select an Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) thermal zone setting”, “associate the overcurrent or undervoltage condition with a set of one or more ACPI thermal zones”, and “thermal zones has one or more unique settings or parameters comprising one or more of: a selected number of devices, one or more trip points, one or more mitigation actions, or one or more temperature sensors, and wherein different ACPI thermal zone settings are selectable”.
STEP 1: Determination of whether Claim(s) are in eligible statutory category. Claim 1 limitations recited an invention that falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (MPEP § 2106.03). Specifically, Claim 1 recites a machine (“system”).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1: Determination of whether claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 limitations emphasized in bold above recite a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) (MPEP2106.04) While execution of the claimed limitations involve using at least some generic computer components, supported in view of further limitation found in Claim 1, reciting: “heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices; and a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the memory comprises firmware instructions”. Based on review of specification, mathematical processes of “detect”, “receive”, “process” may be performed computationally using generic computer components, but it is possible that some processes may be involve mental steps using pen and paper depending on the complexity of the calculation with specification including “user” (for example in at least, [0005]) in performing the steps in the claimed invention. Examiner points to language of “select” or “selecting”, or “selectable”, interpreted to mean a quantitative or qualitative decision based on comparative analysis of data or results of a mathematical process, where result is transmitted to an ACPI.
STEP 2A –PRONG 2: Determination of whether limitations integrate identified judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 does recite additional elements, but these elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements include limitations “detect the overcurrent or undervoltage condition”, “to detect the overcurrent or undervoltage condition, the orchestrator is configured to receive a message from a firmware service” “message comprises data”, “thermal zone setting based, at least in part, upon context or telemetry data and one or more policies received”, which represent collecting quantitative or qualitative information required carry out the Abstract Idea. Such limitations are considered extra solution activity, with guidance from MPEP section 2106.05(g), specifically to be mere data gathering required to perform the mathematical or mental process as recited.
Further analysis does not reveal additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes system and processing steps are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, and as such do not recite improvement to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or to a particular machine, or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B – Determination of whether additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements identified in Claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, limitations claiming gathering and receipt of necessary data, as found in MPEP section 2106.05(g), is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additional elements including “select” represent extra solution activity and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because system components (e.g., “memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform”, “”memory comprises firmware instructions”, and “comprising a plurality of devices”) are generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.) Additional elements are not recited that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Thus, Claim 1, as currently amended, is directed to a judicial exception and is patent ineligible.
Similar analysis was applied to independent Claims 19 and 20, as currently amended, reciting parallel limitations as discussed above for Claim 1. Using interpretation, reasoning, and rationale as applied to Claim 1, Claims 19 and 20 are found to likewise be directed to the Abstract Idea judicial exception of mathematical processes/calculations or mental steps, with limitations parallel to those recited in Claim 1. With the same reasoning and rationale applied as above, in evaluation of STEP1, STEP 2A-PRONG1 and PRONG2 and STEP 2B, Claims 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Likewise, Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a judicial exception and are patent ineligible.
Limitations recited in dependent Claims 2-4 and 7-18 with dependency to Claim 1 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically Examiner finds additional elements in dependent claims that including limitations reciting additional extra-solution, data-gathering, or further limiting the mathematical concept with additional details of performing mathematical calculations. However, limitations as recited in dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When analyzed independently or in combination, dependent Claims 2-4 and 7-18 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) therein represent additional elements that describe insignificant extra solution activity, additional mathematical calculations, instructions or definitions for calculations, and/or numerical data to be used according to the recitation of the abstract ideas as discussed above for independent Claims 1, 19, and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, and 7-20 as currently presented would be allowable over prior art if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent Claims 1 and 19-20, rejected in previous office action under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner finds the best art to be HUANG (US 20210149464 A1), DENT (US 20220173608 A1), HE (CN 111815924 A), and ALBORNOZ (EP 2607987 A1). Upon reconsideration of limitations as currently amended, prior art teaches:
An Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices; (HUANG [0001], FIG. 1, and [0013]) and a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, (HUANG FIG.1, element 120, and [0013]), wherein the memory
comprises firmware instructions that, upon execution by at least one of the
plurality of devices, causes the at least one device to operate as an orchestrator (HUANG FIG.1, with [0013], [0021], and [0022]) configured to:
detect an overcurrent or undervoltage condition, wherein to detect the
overcurrent or undervoltage condition, (DENT Abstract [0002], [0113], FIG. 10 element 202-2 with [0115], and [0116-19] the orchestrator is configured to receive a message from a firmware service executed by another one of the plurality of devices, (HUANG FIG.1. elements 192, 198, and [0020]-[0021]) wherein the other one of the plurality of devices comprises an audio Digital Signal Processor (aDSP) (HE Abstract, [0004], [0033]), wherein the message comprises data processed by the aDSP and received from a battery management unit (BMU) (HUANG FIG. 1, [0022-23]), and wherein the data corresponds to the overcurrent or undervoltage condition (DENT [0013])) sensed by the BMU (HUANG FIG. 1, [0022-23]) ; and
in response to the detection, select an Advanced Configuration and Power
Interface (ACPI) thermal zone setting (ALBORNOZ FIG. 1 with [0001], [0004-5], [0015], FIG. 5) based, at least in part, upon context or telemetry data (HUANG FIG. 2, element 290, with [0023-240]) one or more policies received from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), (ALBORNOZ [0057])
wherein the one or more policies associate the overcurrent or undervoltage condition with a thermal zone, (DENT [0024])
wherein ACPI thermal zones has settings or parameters comprising one or more of: a selected number of devices, one or more trip points, one or more mitigation actions, (ALBORNOZ teaches mitigation action, [0015])) or one or more temperature sensors,
However, Examiner finds no teaching or suggestion individually or in obvious combination to the following limitations in Claim 1, as currently amended, reciting the key features of (emphasis added in bold):
“select an …ACPI thermal zone setting at least in part, upon context/telemetry data and one or more policies…”
“wherein different ACPI thermal zone settings are selectable for a same overcurrent or undervoltage condition under different context or telemetry scenarios”
“wherein each set of one or more ACPI thermal zones has one or more unique settings or parameters comprising one or more of…”
While cited references teach pieces of the limitations recited in Claim 1, Examiner finds that the best art fails to support a prima facie case for obvious combination (MPEP 2144) to arrive with a reasonable expectation of success at the claimed inventive concept, as argued persuasively by Applicant (Pg 12). Specifically, the obvious combination of the best discovered prior art does not teach or suggest the specificity of the performance control feature as recited above of the claimed invention as recited in limitations of Claim 1.
In reconsideration of dependent Claim 4 as currently amended, Examiner finds likewise that amended language differentiates claim limitations over best discovered prior art. While some limitations as recited are found in prior art, as discussed in previous office action, references to not overcome the inherited deficiencies as discussed above for Claim 1.
Likewise, regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 7-18, with dependency to Claim 1, while the best discovered prior art does teach claim limitations recited therein, the cited references fail to overcome the deficiencies as describe above for Claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in previous office actions.
INTEL (“Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) Introduction and Overview”, Version 1.4 : 26 April 2016 Copyright © 2016 Intel Corporation) – teaches function of ACPI interface including multiple device communication protocols.
UEFI (UEFI Forum, Inc., “Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) Specification”, Release 6.5, Aug 29, 2022) – teaches full description of ACPI; Examiner notes only selected pages of the 1126 page document is included with this office action. Full document is available online. Specific examples of ACPI use in thermal management is found in Chapter 11, pages 663-700 including examples.
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 TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights