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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement set forth in the Office Action mailed on 3 September 2025 between Species B1 and B2 (Claims 7 and 8) has been reconsidered. In the interests of fully evaluating prior art with respect to patentability and advancing prosecution, the restriction requirement between Species B1 and B2 has been withdrawn, and Claim 7 is no longer withdrawn from consideration. However, no other restriction requirements from the Office Action mailed on 3 September 2025 have been withdrawn, and Claims 3-4, 9, 11, and 13-15 remain withdrawn from consideration.
In view of the above noted partial withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thermal constraints on operation of the IHS" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as limitation " thermal constraints on operation of the IHS".
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a discrete storage drive” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear as to whether this is intended to refer to one of the previously claimed “discrete storage drives” of Claim 17. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “the discrete storage drives” in a similar fashion to Claim 6, which recites a similar limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “an integrated storage drive” in Line 3. It is unclear as to whether this is intended to refer to the previously claimed “integrated storage drive” of Claim 17. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “the integrated storage drive” in a similar fashion to Claim 6, which recites a similar limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0177817 to Badri et al. (“Badri”), US Patent Number 10,845,943 to Ansari et al. (“Ansari”), and US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0256572 to Lagnado et al. (“Lagnado”).
In reference to Claim 1, Badri discloses an Information Handling System (IHS) (See Figure 1 Number 100, Figure 10 Number 1000, and Paragraphs 21 and 105), comprising: one or more storage drives (See Figure 1 Numbers 112, 114, and 116 and Paragraphs 33-35); a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices (See Figure 1 Number 102, Figure 10 Numbers 1004, 1014, 1016, and 1022, and Paragraphs 106-107), wherein the heterogenous computing platform executes a host Operating System (OS) (See Paragraphs 23-24 [processing device 102 of IHS executes OS]); and a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform (See Figure 1 Number 122, Figure 10 Number 1012, and Paragraphs 19 and 108), wherein the memory comprises a plurality of sets of firmware instructions (See Paragraphs 19 and 108), wherein each of the sets of firmware instructions, upon execution by a respective device among the plurality of devices, enables the respective device to provide a corresponding firmware service (See Paragraphs 19 and 108), and wherein at least one of the plurality of devices operates as an orchestrator (See Figure 2 Number 200 and Paragraphs 19, 37, and 108) configured to: receive a report of a change in user context of operation of the IHS by a user, the change in user context including a proximity of a user to the IHS (See Paragraphs 38-39 and 42); based on the reported change in user context and on a determination that the one or more storage drives includes a first integrated storage drive of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 112 and Paragraphs 21, 105, 107, and 110), determine a change in storage drive settings that are mapped to the proximity of the user, wherein the change in storage drive settings modify operations for the first storage drive when the user is in close proximity to the IHS (See Paragraphs 33-35 [for the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the relative term “close proximity” in accordance with Paragraph 177 of Applicant’s disclosure as meaning close enough to actively operate the IHS]) without modifying the operations for second storage drives of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 114 and 116 and Paragraph 24 [storage drive settings may be changed independently and differently to different storage devices of included in the storage device 104]); and configure the first storage drive of the IHS using the determined change in storage drive settings (See Paragraphs 33-35 and 45) by communicating independently of the host OS, directly to one or more firmware services corresponding to the first storage drive (See Figure 2 and Paragraphs 19, 36-37, 52, 58, and 108 [control system 200 may be implemented by a separate device located externally to processing device 102, and thus need not be implemented by the OS; power control 110 may be implemented by firmware, and is thus “firmware services corresponding to the one or more of storage drives” in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation; as per Figure 2, communication between the external control system 200 and the firmware power control 110 is direct, and does not involve the OS of processing device 102]). However, Badri does not explicitly disclose that the first storage drive is an integrated storage drive disposed within a chassis of the IHS, and the second storage drives are discrete storage drives that are external to the chassis of the IHS. Ansari discloses that a computer storage device (See Figure 2 Number 220) of an IHS (See Figure 2 Number 200) may include both an integrated storage drive disposed within a chassis of the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 [internal hard disk drive]) and discrete storage drives that are external to the chassis of the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 [external hard disk drive, USB flash drive, thumb drive, pen drive, key drive, or external SDRAM]). Badri further does not explicitly disclose that the storage drive settings modify operations by decreasing temperature thresholds for the one or more storage drives when the user is in close proximity to the IHS. Lagnado discloses modifying operations of a computing device by decreasing temperature thresholds for the computing device when a user is in close proximity to the computing device (See Paragraphs 17 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Badri using the storage device having both an integrated internal storage drive and discrete external storage drive of Ansari and using the operations modification by decreasing temperature threshold when the user is in close proximity as the operations modification when a user is in close proximity of Lagnado, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because Badri is not limited as to the particular structure and location of the first and second storage devices (See Paragraphs 21 and 23 of Badri), and the simple substitution of the storage device having both an integrated internal storage device and discrete external storage devices of Ansari as the storage device having multiple storage devices of Badri would have yielded the predictable result of storing data in a manner that allows the IHS to store and access the data from both removable and non-removable media and to offload and upload the data to and from the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 of Ansari), thus increasing the portability of the IHS by allowing some of the storage devices to be disconnected when not needed; and because the simple substitution of the operations modification by decreasing temperature threshold when the user is in close proximity of Lagnado as the operations modification when a user is in close proximity of Badri would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring that the skin temperature of the IHS is not uncomfortable for the user (See Paragraphs 17 and 21 of Lagnado).
In reference to Claim 2, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Badri further discloses that the IHS is a tablet device (See Paragraph 21) and the reported change in user context comprises the user being in close contact with the IHS (See Paragraph 68 [for the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the relative term “close contact” in accordance with Paragraph 175 of Applicant’s disclosure as meaning the user being in physical contact with the IHS]). Lagnado further discloses that the reported change in user context comprises a the user being in close contact with the IHS (See Paragraphs 17 and 21 [for the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the relative term “close contact” in accordance with Paragraph 175 of Applicant’s disclosure as meaning the user being in physical contact with the IHS]).
In reference to Claim 5, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Badri further discloses that the heterogeneous computing platform comprises at least one of an x86 processor and an ARM processor (See Paragraph 21).
In reference to Claim 6, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. However, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado do not explicitly disclose that the storage drive settings mapped to the proximity of the user comprises a higher temperature threshold for the discrete storage drives than the integrated storage drive prior to the change in storage drive settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a finite number of relationships between the storage drive settings temperature thresholds of the discrete and integrated storage drives: the temperature thresholds can be the same, the temperature threshold of the discrete storage drives can be lower than the integrated storage drive, or the temperate threshold of the discrete storage drives can be higher than the integrate storage drive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado by trying storage drive settings comprising a higher temperature threshold for the discrete storage drives than the integrated storage drive, resulting in the invention of Claim 6, because a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado.
In reference to Claim 7, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Lagnado further discloses that thermal constraints on operation of the IHS comprise a cool mode that limits an outer surface temperature of the IHS (See Paragraph 17).
In reference to Claim 10, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Badri further discloses that the orchestrator is further configured to: determine when a first of the storage drives of the IHS is managed via an inband signaling pathway (See Paragraphs 34-36); and adjust the storage drive settings used to configure the first storage drive, wherein the adjustments decrease data storage capabilities of the first storage drive (See Paragraphs 33-35).
In reference to Claim 12, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Badri further discloses that the change in storage drive settings causes a decrease in data storage capabilities of the integrated storage drive (See Paragraphs 33-35).
In reference to Claim 17, Badri discloses a memory (See Figure 1 Number 122, Figure 10 Number 1012, and Paragraphs 19 and 108) coupled to a heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the heterogeneous computing platform comprises a plurality of devices (See Figure 1 Number 102, Figure 10 Numbers 1004, 1014, 1016, and 1022, and Paragraphs 106-107), wherein the memory is configured to receive a plurality of sets of firmware instructions (See Paragraphs 19 and 108), wherein each set of firmware instructions, upon execution by a respective device among the plurality of devices, enables the respective device to provide a corresponding firmware service without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) (See Paragraphs 19, 24, 53-54, 58, and 108), and wherein at least one of the plurality of devices operates as an orchestrator (See Figure 2 Number 200 and Paragraphs 19, 37, and 108) configured to: receive a report of a change in user context of operation of an Information Handling System (IHS), the change in user context including a proximity of a user to the IHS (See Paragraphs 38-39 and 42); based on the reported change in user context and on a determination that the one or more storage drives includes a first integrated storage drive of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 112 and Paragraphs 21, 105, 107, and 110), determine a change in storage drive settings that are mapped to the proximity of the user, wherein the change in storage drive settings modify operations for the first storage drive of the IHS when the user is in close proximity to the IHS (See Paragraphs 33-35 [for the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the relative term “close proximity” in accordance with Paragraph 177 of Applicant’s disclosure as meaning close enough to actively operate the IHS]) without modifying the operations for second storage drives of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 114 and 116 and Paragraph 24 [storage drive settings may be changed independently and differently to different storage devices of included in the storage device 104]); and configure the one or more storage drives of the IHS using the determined storage drive settings (See Paragraphs 33-35 and 45). However, Badri does not explicitly disclose that the first storage drive is an integrated storage drive disposed within a chassis of the IHS, and the second storage drives are discrete storage drives that are external to the chassis of the IHS. Ansari discloses that a computer storage device (See Figure 2 Number 220) of an IHS (See Figure 2 Number 200) may include both an integrated storage drive disposed within a chassis of the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 [internal hard disk drive]) and discrete storage drives that are external to the chassis of the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 [external hard disk drive, USB flash drive, thumb drive, pen drive, key drive, or external SDRAM]). Badri further does not explicitly disclose that the storage drive settings modify operations by decreasing temperature thresholds for the one or more storage drives when the user is in close proximity to the IHS. Lagnado discloses modifying operations of a computing device by decreasing temperature thresholds for the computing device when a user is in close proximity to the computing device (See Paragraphs 17 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Badri using the storage device having both an integrated internal storage device and discrete external storage devices of Ansari and using the operations modification by decreasing temperature threshold when the user is in close proximity as the operations modification when a user is in close proximity of Lagnado, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Badri is not limited as to the particular structure and location of the first and second storage devices (See Paragraphs 21 and 23 of Badri), and the simple substitution of the storage device having both an integrated internal storage device and discrete external storage devices of Ansari as the storage device having multiple storage devices of Badri would have yielded the predictable result of storing data (See Paragraphs of Badri) in a manner that allows the IHS to store and access the data from both removable and non-removable media and to offload and upload the data to and from the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 of Ansari), thus increasing the portability of the IHS by allowing some of the storage devices to be disconnected when not needed; and because the simple substitution of the operations modification by decreasing temperature threshold when the user is in close proximity of Lagnado as the operations modification when a user is in close proximity of Badri would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring that the skin temperature of the IHS is not uncomfortable for the user (See Paragraphs 17 and 21 of Lagnado).
In reference to Claim 18, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. However, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado do not explicitly disclose that the storage drive settings mapped to the proximity of the user comprises a higher temperature threshold for a discrete storage drive than an integrated storage drive prior to the change in storage drive settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a finite number of relationships between the storage drive settings temperature thresholds of the discrete and integrated storage drives: the temperature thresholds can be the same, the temperature threshold of the discrete storage drives can be lower than the integrated storage drive, or the temperature threshold of the discrete storage drives can be higher than the integrate storage drive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Badri and Lagnado by trying storage drive settings comprising a higher temperature threshold for a discrete storage device than an integrated storage device, resulting in the invention of Claim 18, because a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado.
In reference to Claim 19, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Badri further discloses that the heterogeneous computing platform comprises at least one of an x86 processor and an ARM processor (See Paragraph 21).
In reference to Claim 20, Badri discloses a method for managing performance of an Information Handling System (IHS) (See Figure 1 Number 100, Figure 10 Number 1000, and Paragraphs 21 and 105) comprising one or more storage drives (See Figure 1 Numbers 104, 112, 114, and 116, Figure 10 Number 104, and Paragraphs 33-35), comprising: receive a report of a change in user context of operation of the IHS, the change in user context including a proximity of a user to the IHS (See Paragraphs 38-39 and 42), wherein the report is received by an orchestrator (See Figure 2 Number 200 and Paragraphs 19, 37, and 108) of a heterogeneous computing platform of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 102, Figure 10 Numbers 1004, 1014, 1016, and 1022, and Paragraphs 106-107); based on the reported change in user context and on a determination that the one or more storage drives includes a first integrated storage drive of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 112 and Paragraphs 21, 105, 107, and 110), determine, by the orchestrator, a change in storage drive settings that are mapped to the proximity of the user, wherein the change in storage drive settings modify operations for the first storage drive when the user is in close proximity to the IHS (See Paragraphs 33-35 [for the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the relative term “close proximity” in accordance with Paragraph 177 of Applicant’s disclosure as meaning close enough to actively operate the IHS]) without modifying the operations for second storage drives of the IHS (See Figure 1 Number 114 and 116 and Paragraph 24 [storage drive settings may be changed independently and differently to different storage devices of included in the storage device 104]); and configure, by the orchestrator, independently of a host OS of the IHS, the first storage drive of the IHS using the change in storage drive settings (See Paragraphs 23-24, 33-35, 45, and 58 [control system 200 may be implemented by a separate device located externally to processing device 102, and thus is independent of the OS). Badri further does not explicitly disclose that the storage drive settings modify operations by decreasing temperature thresholds for the one or more storage drives when the user is in close proximity to the IHS. Lagnado discloses modifying operations of a computing device by decreasing temperature thresholds for the computing device when a user is in close proximity to the computing device (See Paragraphs 17 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Badri using the storage device having both an integrated internal storage device and discrete external storage devices of Ansari and using the operations modification by decreasing temperature threshold when the user is in close proximity as the operations modification when a user is in close proximity of Lagnado, resulting in the invention of Claim 20, because Badri is not limited as to the particular structure and location of the first and second storage devices (See Paragraphs 21 and 23 of Badri), and the simple substitution of the storage device having both an integrated internal storage device and discrete external storage devices of Ansari as the storage device having multiple storage devices of Badri would have yielded the predictable result of storing data (See Paragraphs of Badri) in a manner that allows the IHS to store and access the data from both removable and non-removable media and to offload and upload the data to and from the IHS (See Column 9 Lines 13-32 of Ansari), thus increasing the portability of the IHS by allowing some of the storage devices to be disconnected when not needed; and because the simple substitution of the operations modification by decreasing temperature threshold when the user is in close proximity of Lagnado as the operations modification when a user is in close proximity of Badri would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring that the skin temperature of the IHS is not uncomfortable for the user (See Paragraphs 17 and 21 of Lagnado).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0363786 to Hsu et al. (“Hsu”).
In reference to Claim 8, Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado do not explicitly disclose that the orchestrator is further configured to cause the IHS to operate in a quiet mode that limits noise generated by the IHS when the user is in close proximity to the IHS. Hsu discloses operation of at least one storage drive device while exceeding thermal constraints on operation of an IHS while a user is not in proximity to the IHS (See Figure 2 Number 214 and Paragraphs 18 and 34-41). Hsu discloses that that the orchestrator is further configured to cause the IHS to operate in a quiet mode that limits noise generated by the IHS when the user is in close proximity to the IHS (See Paragraphs 4, 23, and 39-40 [for the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the relative term “close proximity” in accordance with Paragraph 177 of Applicant’s disclosure as meaning close enough to actively operate the IHS]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Badri, Ansari, and Lagnado using the proximity based quiet mode of Hsu, resulting in the invention of Claim 8, in order to yield the predictable result of minimizing undesirable acoustic noise while providing sufficient cooling of resources of the information handling system (See Paragraph 4 of Hsu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights