DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “process telemetry data generated by one or more telemetry sources,” is an abstract idea, as it involves mental process, under the BRI. For the independent claim 13, we recognize that the limitations “aggregating the collected telemetry data into a histogram,” and “analyzing the aggregated telemetry data to determine operational changes for the device components,” are abstract ideas, as they involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept of statistics, under the BRI. Similar rejections are made for other dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “one or more processing cores; and a telemetry subsystem, comprising one or more dedicated telemetry cores, distinct from the one or more processing cores,” “collecting, by one or more the telemetry agents, telemetry data from one or more device components,” storing, by the one or more telemetry cores, the aggregated telemetry data in memory,” “without interrupting processing jobs on the one or more processing cores,” and “configuring one or more telemetry agents to connect to one or more device components for monitoring and collecting telemetry data,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve any devices. The claims also do not improve any technology due to several reasons, including lack of details in the claimed invention. In summary, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “one or more processing cores; and a telemetry subsystem, comprising one or more dedicated telemetry cores,” “collecting, by one or more the telemetry agents, telemetry data from one or more device components,” storing, by the one or more telemetry cores, the aggregated telemetry data in memory,” ““without interrupting processing jobs on the one or more processing cores,” and “configuring one or more telemetry agents to connect to one or more device components for monitoring and collecting telemetry data,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not recite the additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0378628 (hereinafter Ngyuyen)
Regarding Claim 1. Nguyen discloses a system on a chip (SoC) (Fig. 11, system on chip) for telemetry collection (Abstract), the SoC comprising:
one or more processing cores (Fig. 1, non-isolated cores and spare core); and a telemetry subsystem, comprising one or more telemetry cores dedicated to the collection and processing of telemetry data distinct from the one or more processing cores (Fig. 1, Diagnostic hardware 102 and telemetry. Diagnostic hardware is a dedicated processor core, processing telemetry data),
a dedicated telemetry core random access memory (RAM) (Figs. 1, 104, telemetry data storage dedicated to diagnostic hardware unit; Paragraph [0021], RAM),
wherein the one or more telemetry cores are configured to process telemetry data generated by one or more telemetry sources without interrupting processing jobs on the one or more processing cores (Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025], hardware processor dynamically monitor the processor’s use, etc. In other words, without interrupting processing jobs on processing cores; [0028], diagnostic hardware unit collect telemetry data of processor as well as non-processor components, including memory, storage and networking devices. For processing non-processor components, processing jobs on other cores are not interrupted, [0030], Figs. 2-4, determine potential failure; non-isolated cores are not interrupted, including the spare core(s)) and store the telemetry data in the dedicated telemetry core RAM (Fig. 1, 104, telemetry data storage)
Regarding Claim 3. Ngyuen discloses the telemetry core is connected to the one or more processing cores via a bus (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 11, bus controller).
Regarding Claim 4. Nguyen discloses the telemetry data includes core telemetry data and non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core)
Regarding Claim 5. Nguyen discloses one or more additional components, wherein the one or more additional components provide the core or non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core)
Regarding Claim 6. Nguyen discloses the telemetry subsystem further comprises one or more telemetry agents, wherein the one or more telemetry agents are attached to components of the SoC to monitor the components of the SoC for the telemetry data (Paragraph [0028])
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.
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.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, US-PGPUB 2016/0378628 in view of Muro et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0371363 (hereinafter Muro)
Regarding Claims 7 and 17. Ngyuen does not disclose the telemetry cores configure the one or more analysis modules to generate histograms based on the telemetry data, post-process the generated histograms and detect anomalies from the post-processed histograms.
Muro discloses the telemetry cores configure the one or more analysis modules to generate histograms based on the telemetry data, post-process the generated histograms and detect anomalies from the post-processed histograms (Fig. 1-2, 8; Abstract, Paragraph [0068], similarity comparison of the histogram to determine anomaly; Paragraph [0003]-[0006], using histogram to determine anomaly in devices; [0011], [0015])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Muro in Ngyuen and have the telemetry cores configure the one or more analysis modules to generate histograms based on the telemetry data, post-process the generated histograms and detect anomalies from the post-processed histograms with efficiency.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18. Ngyuen discloses processing the core telemetry data and the non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core for failure estimation)
Nguyen does not disclose the telemetry subsystem comprises one or more histogram accelerator, wherein the one or more histogram accelerator processes the core telemetry data and the non-core telemetry data.
Muro discloses the telemetry cores configure the one or more analysis modules to generate histograms based on the telemetry data using one more histogram accelerators and detect anomalies (Fig. 1-2, partial, feature, histogram generation functions 117-120, 8; Abstract, Paragraph [0068], similarity comparison of the histogram to determine anomaly; Paragraph [0003]-[0006], using histogram to determine anomaly in devices; [0011], [0015])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Muro in Ngyuen and have the telemetry subsystem comprises one or more histogram accelerator, wherein the one or more histogram accelerator processes the core telemetry data and the non-core telemetry data, so as to detect failure with efficiency.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19. Ngyuen discloses processing the core telemetry data and the non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core for failure estimation)
Ngyuen does not disclose wherein a first histogram accelerator of the one or more histogram accelerators processes core telemetry data and a second histogram accelerator of the one or more histogram accelerators processes non-core telemetry data.
Muro discloses the telemetry cores configure the one or more analysis modules to generate histograms based on the telemetry data using first and second histogram accelerators and detect anomalies from the post-processed histograms (Fig. 1-2, partial, feature, histogram generation functions 117-120, 8; Abstract, Paragraph [0068], similarity comparison of the histogram to determine anomaly; Paragraph [0003]-[0006], using histogram to determine anomaly in devices; [0011], [0015])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Muro in Ngyuen and have a first histogram accelerator of the one or more histogram accelerators processes core telemetry data and a second histogram accelerator of the one or more histogram accelerators processes non-core telemetry data, so as to detect failure with efficiency.
Regarding Claim 10. Ngyuen discloses processing the core telemetry data and the non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core for failure estimation)
Nguyen does not disclose the first histogram accelerator is configured to group the core telemetry data into bins according to part identifiers and event identifiers within the core telemetry data.
Muro discloses a histogram accelerator configured to group the telemetry data into bins according to part identifiers and event identifiers within the telemetry data (Fig. 2, partial and feature histogram generation functions 117-120, and associated identifiers data, Paragraphs [0087]-[0122], identifiers, including machines and measurement event, as an example, Figs. 3-8, 19, 27)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Muro in Ngyuen and have the first histogram accelerator is configured to group the core telemetry data into bins according to part identifiers and event identifiers within the core telemetry data, so as to detect failure with efficiency.
Regarding Claim 11. Ngyuen discloses processing the core telemetry data and the non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core for failure estimation)
Nguyen does not disclose the second histogram accelerator is configured to group the non-core telemetry data into bins according to part identifiers and event identifiers within the non-core telemetry data.
Muro discloses a histogram accelerator configured to group the telemetry data into bins according to part identifiers and event identifiers within the telemetry data (Fig. 2, partial and feature histogram generation functions 117-120, and associated identifiers data, Paragraphs [0087]-[0122], identifiers, including machines and measurement event, as an example, Figs. 3-8, 19, 27)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Muro in Ngyuen and have the second histogram accelerator is configured to group the non-core telemetry data into bins according to part identifiers and event identifiers within the non-core telemetry data, so as to detect failure with efficiency.
Regarding Claim 12. Nguyen discloses the telemetry data is stored in memory (Fig. 1, 104, telemetry data storage)
Regarding Claim 13. Nguyen discloses telemetry collection in a device (Abstract), the method comprising:
collecting, by one or more telemetry agents, telemetry data from one or more device components (Paragraph [0028]; Figs. 1, 3);
storing, by the one or more telemetry cores dedicated to the collection and processing of telemetry data, the aggregated telemetry data in memory (Fig. 1, 104, telemetry data storage; Paragraph [0021]); and analyzing, by the one or more dedicated telemetry cores (Fig. 1, Diagnostic hardware 102 and telemetry), the aggregated telemetry data to determine operational changes for the device components, wherein the aggregating, storing, and analyzing is performed by the dedicated telemetry cores without interrupting processing jobs on one or more processing cores of the device (Paragraph [0025], hardware processor dynamically monitor the processor’s use, etc. In other words, without interrupting processing jobs on processing cores; [0028], diagnostic hardware unit collect telemetry data of processor as well as non-processor components, including memory, storage and networking devices. For processing non-processor components, processing jobs on other cores are not interrupted, [0030], Figs. 2-4, determine potential failure; non-isolated cores are not interrupted, including the spare core(s)), the one or more processing cores being distinct from the dedicated telemetry cores (Paragraph [0024], [0030], Figs. 1-4, determine potential failure; non-isolated cores are not interrupted, including the spare core(s)).
Nguyen does not disclose aggregating, by one or more dedicated telemetry cores, the collected telemetry data into a histogram
Muro discloses aggregating, by one or more dedicated telemetry cores, the collected telemetry data into a histogram (Fig. 1-2, 8; Abstract, Paragraph [0068], similarity comparison of the histogram to determine anomaly; Paragraph [0003]-[0006], using histogram to determine anomaly in devices; [0011], [0015])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Muro in Ngyuen and aggregate, by one or more dedicated telemetry cores, the collected telemetry data into a histogram, so as to detect failure with efficiency.
Regarding Claim 15. Nguyen discloses the one or more telemetry cores are connected to the one or more processing cores via a bus (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 11, bus controller).
Regarding Claim 16. Nguyen discloses the telemetry data includes core telemetry data and non-core telemetry data (Paragraph [0028], core and non-core)
Regarding Claim 20. Nguyen discloses configuring one or more telemetry agents to connect to one or more device components for monitoring and collecting telemetry data (Paragraph [0028])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For the prior art rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, based on the updated rejection. Additionally, with respect to Muro not teaching SoC architecture, Applicant is advised that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see MPEP 2145). As such, in combination with Nguyen, Muro discloses as claimed. For the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and state that multi-core, computer system with dedicated core processing telemetry data and latency is known, and the claimed invention amounts to broadly processing any type of telemetry data using any processing method using computer that raises major pre-emption issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hearn et al., US Pat No. 10,860,374, multi-core, telemetry data processing using dedicated core
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights