Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on January 30th, 2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on January 23rd, 2026. Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 23rd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Examiner notes that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn in view of the amended claim language.
5. Applicant argues that the amendments recite a technical improvement, namely reduction of waste. More specifically that the “component use tracking occurs in background at each information handling system to be automatically applied for the repair and remanufacture at micro manufacturing centers. These automated operations fuel a process that optimizes component use so that components having remaining useable life are brought for remanufacture to avoid unnecessary waste.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant characterizes the claims as reducing waste, the claims achieve such reduction through analysis of lifecycle and cost information to make repair, harvesting, shipping, and manufacturing allocation decisions, which constitutes resource management and logistical planning. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of computers, sensors, robotic systems, networking technology, or manufacturing machinery itself. Rather, the claims use generic computing components to collect information and implement decisions relating to remanufacturing operations. Examiner further notes that the recited tracking of keyboard usage information and liquid even information forms part of the abstract data collection and analysis process used to perform the claimed resource allocation and remanufacturing decisions, and does not improve the functioning of the keyboard, liquid detection sensor, or information handling systems themselves.
6. Applicant argues that the rejection does not specify which of the three subgroupings is applied: fundamental economic principles, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior. Applicant further argues that the Examiner extemporized. Examiner notes that the rejection expressly identifies the claims as reciting fundamental economic practices, including resource management, cost optimization, and logistical planning relating to component repair, harvesting, reuse, and remanufacturing operations. These determination concern allocation of repair resources, harvesting decisions, movement of manufacturing centers, shipping decisions, and optimization of remanufacturing operations based upon lifecycle and cost information. Accordingly, the rejection identifies the applicable grouping under certain method of organizing human activity. Merely because the claims are applied within a manufacturing or remanufacturing environment does not remove the claims from the abstract idea category where the focus of the claims remains economic and logistical resource management implemented using generic computer components.
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.
7. Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-20 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 1-8, 11, and 14-20 are directed to a system and method which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A system for information handling system manufacture, the system comprising:
plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers;
plural geographically distributed information handling systems […] that tracks use of plural components included in each geographically distributed information handling system, […], […] tracking and storing keyboard lifecycle information including a total number of key presses at the keyboard and detection of a liquid event;
a lifecycle server information handling system […] with the plural geographically distributed information handling systems to track a lifecycle of the plural components included in each of the plural distributed information handling systems by […] retrieving the use of the plural components to compare with component lifecycle information, including at least the keyboard lifecycle information; and
a remanufacture server information handling system interfaced with the lifecycle server information handling system, the remanufacture server information handling system commanding micro manufacturing center robotic resources to repair the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the plural components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the remanufacture server information handling system commanding repairs and harvesting to maintain a predetermined cost in which the repairs and harvesting are performed including at least a cost associated with visual inspection of the plural components when a liquid event is detected.
Claim 11 recites:
A method of automated reuse of components used in distributed information handling systems comprising:
distributing plural micro manufacturing centers geographically;
tracking lifecycle information of the components when the components are used in the information handling systems by an agent […] to […] track component use as a background operation;
receiving repair requests for one or more of the distributed information handling systems;
analyzing the life cycle information to predict geographical locations of repairs of the distributed information handling systems;
selecting a geographical location to move the one or more micro manufacturing centers based upon prediction of location of harvested components from the repaired information handling systems;
moving one or more of the micro manufacturing centers to different geographical locations based upon the predicted geographical locations; and
shipping the plural distributed information handling systems to one or more of the plural micro manufacturing centers to repair the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the shipping performed to maintain a predetermined cost at which the repairs are performed with both new components and harvested components.
Claim 1 recites the above limitations directed to managing and analyzing lifecycle information of distributed components and using that information to determine repair, reuse, and cost scheduling across geographically distributed mico manufacturing centers. The claim involves collecting component usage information (e.g. total key presses, detection of liquid events), analyzing that data, and directing remanufacture or harvesting operations based on predicted costs and lifecycle comparisons. Claim 11 recites the above limitations directed to automated reuse of components used in distributed information handling systems comprising steps of distributed micro manufacturing centers, tracking lifecycle information of components, receiving repair requests, analyzing lifecycle information to predict geographical locations for repairs, selecting locations to move manufacturing centers, moving the centers, and shipping distributed systems for repair and reuse. . These determinations concern allocation of repair resources, harvesting decisions, and optimization of remanufacturing operations based on cost and predicted demand.
These limitations as drafted are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting including a processing resource, a non-transient memory and an agent stored in the non- transient memory, the plural components including at least a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor, and interfaced through a network (claim 1) and stored in non-transitory memory of each distributed information handling system and executing on a processing resource of each distributed information handling system (claim 11), and “automatically” which is interpreted to be the equivalent to “using a computer” (claims 1 and 11), the claimed invention amounts to a fundamental economic practices, including resource management, inventory and cost optimization, and logistical planning for allocation of repair and remanufacturing resources. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practices but for the recitation of generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)), then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea. Examiner notes that although the claim recites that the remanufacturing server commands the micro manufacturing center robotic resources in claim 1, this language merely represents giving an instruction, no structural details or improvements to robotic operation or control are provided. Examiner also notes that the “moving one or more of the micro manufacturing centers” of claim 11 merely reflects the implementation of a logistical decision and does not recite a specific technological operation. As such, these limitations are considered part of the abstract idea of managing resource allocation and manufacturing logistics rather than an additional element. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that are recited are a processing resource, a non-transient memory and an agent stored in the non- transient memory, the plural components including at least a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor, and interfaced through a network (claim 1) and stored in non-transitory memory of each distributed information handling system and executing on a processing resource of each distributed information handling system (claim 11). Both claims 1 and 11 further recite the additional element of “automatically” which is interpreted to be the equivalent to “using a computer.” These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recited above to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claims 2-8, and 14-20 are similarly rejected because they merely further narrow the same abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 11 and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim 2 merely describes components of the centers and adjusting predetermined cost. Claims 3-5 merely describe selecting a geographical location. Claim 6 merely describes another system that supplies data that is used in the selection of the abstract idea. Claim 7 merely describes the carbon footprint information. Claim 8 merely describes allocating costs. Claims 14 and 15 merely describes monitoring data and selecting a center based on the monitored data.
Claim 16 merely describes data collected. Claims 17 and 18 merely describe storing data. Claim 19 merely describes information sensed and Claim 20 merely describes lifecycle information. Claim 16 also includes the additional elements of a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor, claim 17 also includes the additional element of a battery having a BMU and claim 18 includes the additional element of a motherboard having a CPU. Further, claim 19 includes the additional element of a solid state drive and claim 20 includes the additional element of a speaker. These additional elements are again recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computers performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 2-8, and 14-20 are patent ineligible. The dependent claims 2-8, and 14-20 are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more” or providing any integration into a practical application. Rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claims 1 and 11. Therefore, Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art
8. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within claims 1 and 11 (and therefore dependent claims 2-8, and 14-20).
Edmonds et al. (US 2002/0095491 A1) discloses remote monitoring of production line equipment over a network. Kayara (US 10,482,299 B1) discloses capturing and communicating essential information about finished products and their components and materials, and to make consistent repair or recycle determinations. Yokote (US 2008/0094232)discloses an electronic apparatus includes a keyboard, a housing, a liquid sensor, a plurality of groove portions, and a water-transmitting material. While Yokote mentions sensors and detection functions, there is no teaching of using a liquid detection event to initiate inspection or cost management operations. Liberman et al. (US 2018/0165641) discloses automated management of systems maintenance, and more particularly to coordinating maintenance activities of different systems to allow effective component reuse.
In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest all of the features in the independent claims and more specifically the limitations in combination of: tracking by an agent stored in non-transitory memory, lifecycle information of plural components (including a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor), analyzing such lifecycle information to predict repair or harvesting needs, coordinating geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers via lifecycle and remanufacture servers, and maintaining repairs and harvesting at a predetermined cost including at least a cost associated with visual inspection of the plural components when a liquid even is detected in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, TARIQ HAFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights