DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/1/26 wherein:
claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, and 19 are currently pending; and
claims 5, 11, 12, 18, and 20 are cancelled.
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 .
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, 6-10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 16 and 19 recite a method and a memory storage device, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the processor to:
upon notification of a transfer of the IHS:
receive a credential of a recipient of the transfer of the HIS, wherein the credential of the recipient comprises a public key of a cryptographic keypair of the recipient;
generate a first inventory comprising an inventory of detected hardware of the IHS;
cryptographically sign the generated first hardware inventory using the credential of the recipient;
receive a first workspace definition from a remote orchestrator;
instantiate a first workspace executing on the IHS based on the received first workspace definition, wherein the first workspace transmits the first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient to the remote orchestrator for publishing, and wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the first workspace via an out-of-band (OB) connection that is isolated from any operating system (OS) of the IHS; and
publish the first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient; and
upon transfer of the IHS to the recipient:
detect components of the IHS to generate a second inventory comprising an inventory of detected hardware of the IHS;
retrieve the published first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient; and
compare the second inventory of detected hardware of the IHS against the signed first hardware inventory to identify any discrepancies in the hardware components of the HIS;
receive a second workspace definition from the remote orchestrator and
instantiate a second workspace executing on the IHS based on the received second workspace definition, wherein the second workspace retrieves the published first hardware inventory from the remote orchestrator and compares the second inventory against the published first hardware inventory to identify any discrepancies, and wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the second workspace via another OOB connection that is isolated from any OS of the IHS
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification indicates that the invention is directed to supporting transfers of IHSs (Information Handling Systems, such as a desktop or laptop). Specification ¶¶1, 15. This may occur when ownership is transferred, such as based on a sale. Specification ¶62. This is a commercial interaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
Claim 1: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; and a remote orchestrator
Claim 16: a remote orchestrator
Claim 19: a memory storage device, a remote orchestrator
The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the receiving and retrieving limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations reciting “cryptographically sign,” “instantiate a first workspace executing on the IHS based on the received first workspace definition, wherein the first workspace transmits the first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient to the remote orchestrator for publishing, and wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the first workspace via an out-of-band (OB) connection that is isolated from any operating system (OS) of the HIS,” and “instantiate a second workspace executing on the IHS based on the received second workspace definition, wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the second workspace via another OOB connection that is isolated from any OS of the IHS” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“cryptographically sign,” “instantiate a first workspace executing on the IHS based on the received first workspace definition, wherein the first workspace transmits the first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient to the remote orchestrator for publishing, and wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the first workspace via an out-of-band (OB) connection that is isolated from any operating system (OS) of the HIS,” and “instantiate a second workspace executing on the IHS based on the received second workspace definition, wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the second workspace via another OOB connection that is isolated from any OS of the IHS”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving and retrieving limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 13-15, and 17 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 16, and 19 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 16, and 19; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 7 and 8 further include the additional element of a distributed ledger in the form of a public blockchain. The ledger and blockchain are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, and 19.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Jacquin et al. (US 20210073003). Jacquin discloses a system for using an integrity manifest certificate to verify the state of a platform (abstract).
Andrews et al. (US 20210135943) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Andrews discloses a related system for Information Handling Systems that are enabled to instantiate a workspace (abstract).
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor fairly and reasonable teach an information handling system (HIS) comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the processor to: upon notification of a transfer of the IHS:
receive a credential of a recipient of the transfer of the HIS, wherein the credential of the recipient comprises a public key of a cryptographic keypair of the recipient;
generate a first inventory comprising an inventory of detected hardware of the IHS;
cryptographically sign the generated first hardware inventory using the credential of the recipient; receive a first workspace definition from a remote orchestrator; instantiate a first workspace executing on the IHS based on the received first workspace definition, wherein the first workspace transmits the first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient to the remote orchestrator for publishing, and wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the first workspace via an out-of-band (OB) connection that is isolated from any operating system (OS) of the IHS; and publish the first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient; and upon transfer of the IHS to the recipient: detect components of the HIS to generate a second inventory comprising an inventory of detected hardware of the IHS; retrieve the published first hardware inventory signed using the credential of the recipient; and compare the second inventory of detected hardware of the IHS against the signed first hardware inventory to identify any discrepancies in the hardware components of the IHS; receive a second workspace definition from the remote orchestrator and instantiate a second workspace executing on the IHS based on the received second workspace definition, wherein the second workspace retrieves the published first hardware inventory from the remote orchestrator and compares the second inventory against the published first hardware inventory to identify any discrepancies, and wherein the remote orchestrator connects with the second workspace via another OOB connection that is isolated from any OS of the IHS.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
I. Overview
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s overview.
II. Amendments
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s provision of support for the amendments.
III. Rejections under 35 USC 101
Step 2A-Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Applicant argues that the rejection “does not appear to assert that the claimed limitations recite a commercial or legal interaction, but instead comments that the Specification describes that the claimed embodiments may be useful for performing actions that occur because of a commercial transaction.” Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations directed to the commercial interaction have been identified in the rejection (see the underlined claim limitations above). It is noted that the claim limitations include publishing an inventory upon notification of a transfer of an IHS, and then, upon the transfer of the HIS, comparing a second inventory against the first inventory. The transaction (the transfer) is part of the claim limitations. The evidence from the Specification further explains that the invention is directed to said transfer.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Applicant states that amendments are presented to clarify that the claimed limitations are performed with effect to the claimed Information systems and encompass improvements in the functioning of the IHS. Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to other technology or a technical field. No support is provided for how the IHS themselves are improved; this is mere allegation without support and is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights