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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/12/2026, are accepted.
Claims 1-4, 7-19, and 21-23 are pending examination herein.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 13 , 16, 17, and 19 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been reviewed and fully considered.
In consideration of Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-20 under provisional non-statutory double patenting in previous office action (Non Final Rejection dated 02/13/2026), Examiner withdraws rejection based on Applicant’s presently amended claim limitations, which now differentiate the claimed invention from the invention claimed in co-pending Application #18/063,135, in consideration of recent amendments made therein, and in view of secondary references.
In consideration of applicant’s amendments, specifically to independent claims 1, and 19, Examiner finds language necessitates further search and evaluation to examine matter not previously considered. Further consideration of claim limitations has resulted in new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as detailed below.
With regard to rejection of Claims 1-4 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over obvious combination of prior art, Examiner finds arguments are persuasive, and finds claim limitations as currently amended differentiate the claimed invention over prior art, inclusive of newly added claims 21-23. 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, 7-19, and 21-23 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). Examiner further notes guidance found in "2024 Guidance Update on Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence" and "July 2024 Subject
Matter Eligibility Examples".
Independent Claim 1 is held to be patent ineligible, with step by step
evaluation of eligibility explained below.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites abstract concepts (bold emphasis added) as follows: “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”; “receive, via the host OS, an Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) thermal zone setting”; “determine, based on information received from a first of the plurality of devices that is communicated independently of the host OS”; “detect a battery's State-of-Charge or Depth-of-Discharge based on information received from a second of the plurality of devices that is communicated independently of the host OS”; “in response to the detection, cause an update to the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) thermal zone setting.”
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) Execution of the claimed limitations involve using at least some generic computer components, supported in view of other
limitations recited in Claim 1, including: “a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices”; “memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the memory comprises firmware instructions”; “a host Operating System (OS)”. Based on review of specification, mathematical processes recited as above, including “detect” or “receive” may be performed computationally using generic computer components. However, it is possible that some processes may be involve mental steps using pen and paper depending on the complexity of the calculation with specification (dated 12/09/2022, with [00162] amended 07/17/2025), including “user” (for example in at least, [0005]) in performing the steps in the claimed invention. Examiner further points to language of “based on information” or “in response”, interpreted using plain meaning as a quantitative or qualitative decision based on comparative analysis of data or results of a mathematical process, which may be performed by generic computer components or by mental steps.
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. Such additional elements include:
“(receive)…thermal zone setting”; “a battery's State-of-Charge or Depth-of-Discharge”; “communicated independently of the host OS”; “a battery's State-of-Charge or Depth-of-Discharge”; “based on information received from a first of the plurality of devices”, which
represent collecting quantitative or qualitative information required perform 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 concept or mental process as recited.
Examiner notes specific attention to additional element reciting “cause an update”, with interpretation based on broadest reasonable interpretation and using plain meaning, this limitation is considered as involving generic output results of a mathematical process or mental steps. The claim does not impose any limits on how the data is output or require any particular components that are used to output “update” to the ACPI beyond generic computer-related components as identified above.
Further analysis does not reveal additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. Examiner notes system and processing steps performed by generic computer components 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, including those discussed above in STEP 2A-PRONG2, when 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 or information required to perform the Abstract Idea, 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 “cause an update” 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.
In consideration of independent Claim 19, with limitations paralleling those recited in Claim 1, similar analysis, including interpretation, reasoning and rationale is applied to evaluate eligibility.
STEP 1: Claim 19 is in an eligible statutory category. Specifically, Claim 19 recites limitations for a manufacture (“heterogeneous computing platform”).
Evaluation of Claim 19 using STEP 2A-PRONG 1 finds that Claim 19 recites a judicial exception, Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept or Mental Steps grouping. Further evaluation under STEP 2A-PRONG 2, and STEP 2B, finds recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that amount, either individually or in ordered combination, to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception and is patent ineligible.
Next, dependent claims 2-4, 6-18, with dependency to Claim 1, and dependent claims 21-23, with dependency to Claim 19, are considered. Examiner finds limitations recited by dependent claims recite limitations which further limit performing the judicial exception of Abstract Idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or that can be considered as significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Examiner finds dependent claims include 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, 6-18, and 21-23 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 and 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-20, and 21-23 as currently presented would be allowable over prior
art if 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, rejected in previous office
action under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner finds the best art to be HUANG (US 20210149464 A1) in view of ECKERT (US 20170052229 A1) and HE (CN 111815924 A), and further in view of ALBORNOZ (EP 2607987 A1).Upon evaluation of limitations as currently amended, prior art teaches:
An Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a heterogeneous computing platform executing a host Operating System (OS), (HUANG, Abstract, [0001], [0029]: “”OS functionality”)
the heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices; (HUANG, FIG. 1 with [0013])
a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, (HUANG, FIG.1, element 120, with [0013])
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]; [0021-22])
orchestrator configured to: receive, via the host OS, an Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) thermal zone setting ; (ALBORNOZ, Abstract, [0007], and [0015]) determine that the IHS is operating on battery power; (ECKERT, [0002], [0004], FIG. 1 with [0026], and [0066])
and in response to the detection, cause an update to the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) thermal zone setting. (ALBORNOZ [0004-5], [0015], and FIG. 5.)
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 (bold emphasis added):
“based on information received from a first of the plurality of devices that is communicated independently of the host OS,”
“in response to determining that the IHS is operating on battery power, detect a battery's State-of-Charge or Depth-of-Discharge based on information received from a second of the plurality of devices that is communicated independently of the host OS”
In consideration of independent Claim 19, similar rationale and reasoning is applied to limitations parallel to those found to differentiate over prior art in Claim 1 such that Claim 19 recited limitations that differentiate the claimed invention over prior art..
While cited references teach pieces of the limitations recited in Claims 1 and 19, 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 8 of 9). Specifically,
the obvious combination of the best discovered prior art does not teach or suggest the
inventive concept of receiving information from a first and second of a plurality of devices, where communication is independent of host OS as recited above of the claimed invention as recited in limitations of Claim 1.
Likewise, regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 7-18, with dependency to Claim 1, and claims 21-23 with dependency to Claim 19, while the best discovered prior art does teach claim limitations recited therein, the cited references fail to overcome the deficiencies as describe above for Claims 1 and 19.
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 and is included in previous office actions. Additional art relevant is included below:
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