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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed 1/30/2023.
2. Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending in the application.
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.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to an information handling system configured to perform steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
…receive configuration definition information indicating a correspondence between events and notifications…; and
…in accordance with the configuration definition information.
These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
at least one processor;
a memory; and
local status notification hardware;
…that are configured to be output by the local status notification hardware; and
cause non-local status notifications to be output by the local status notification hardware.
These limitations recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Furthermore, these limitations recited amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of necessary data outputting, as it is merely outputting the result of the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, the combination of additional elements results in mere instructions to implement the exception on a computer and outputting the result of the exception, which is insignificant extra- solution activity. This combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional elements, they are reciting generic computing components perform the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities which amount to necessary data outputting.
Further, the additional element: cause non-local status notifications to be output by the local status notification hardware, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The combination of these additional elements amounts to a system comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
As to claim 2, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites: the information handling system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
As to claim 3, it is a dependent claim of claims 1 and 2, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in those claims. Claim 3 recites: the non-local status notifications include hardware and/or software events relating to other nodes of the HCI system, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 2, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
As to claim 4, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 4 recites: the configuration definition information is customizable by a user of the information handling system, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
As to claim 5, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites: the local status information hardware includes at least one component selected from the group consisting of: light-emitting diodes, speakers configured to produce sound, and liquid-crystal displays having a diagonal size less than 8 inches, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
As to claim 6, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 6 recites: a management controller configured to provide out-of-band management of the information handling system, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Furthermore, claim 6 recites additional limitation: cause the non-local status notifications to be output by the local status notification hardware, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The combination of these additional elements amounts to a system comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
As to claims 7-12, they recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1-6, respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-6, claims 7-12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
As to claims 13-18, they recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1-6, respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-6, claims 13-18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
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.
4. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan U.S Patent No. 12,067,430 in view of Parker U.S Patent No. 7,458,080.
As to claim 1, Wan teaches an information handling system (Fig. 1 and associated specifications) comprising:
at least one processor; a memory (…The computing device may include processor(s), memory unit(s)…, lines 47-48 column 10);
wherein the information handling system is configured to:
receive configuration definition information (…run an idle detection algorithm and/or a policy-based action module…, lines 15-17 column 5) indicating a correspondence between events and notifications (…When an idle detection algorithm206 is executed, the idle detection algorithm206 retrieves CPU and network usage data (samples) from the usage statistics database204…, lines 48-50 column 5) that are configured to be output; and cause non-local status notifications (…notifying a system administrator…, lines 54-55 column 5) to be output in accordance with the configuration definition information (…If the idle detection algorithm206 determines that the SDDC202 is idle, an event is triggered in a policy-based action module208, so that a policy-based action module208 can perform or cause performance of an action, such as notifying a system administrator to enable the system administrator to perform remediation or other action, disabling the idle SDDC, removing the idle SDDC from the software-defined HCI system (including auto-scaling the HCI system), repurposing and activating the idle SDDC for some other task, etc…, lines 50-60 column 5).
Wan does not teach local status notification hardware.
Parker teaches an event notification system wherein a user configures events to be notified via local status notification hardware (…a graphical user interface display for setting notification types to reminder type notifications. That is, a reminder is a particular type of notification event that is triggered in order to remind the user of something, such as a meeting time or a due date for a project, for example. These reminders are typically associated with a calendar type application program, as discussed in more detail below. Reminder type notification events may be set, using display 700 to trigger different types of notifications. For example, the reminders may be set to cause vibrations by checking box 702, display a message by checking display box 704, flash a light by checking light box 706 or to play a sound by checking sound box 708. If the sound box 708 is selected controls 710 are enabled, otherwise controls 710 are disabled. Controls 710 provide for the management of the types and volume of the sound that is played once a reminder initiates a notification…, lines 23-39 column 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wan reference to include the teachings of Parker reference because by using local status notification hardware, the system allows the user to select a preferred method to receive an event notification, as disclosed by Parker.
As to claim 2, Wan as modified further teaches the information handling system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system (…removing the idle SDDC from the software-defined HCI system (including auto-scaling the HCI system), repurposing and activating the idle SDDC for some other task…, lines 57-59 column 5).
As to claim 3, Wan as modified further teaches the non-local status notifications include hardware and/or software events relating to other nodes of the HCI system (…the virtualized computing environment100 includes multiple hosts, such as host-A110A ... host-N110N that may be inter-connected via a physical network.112…, Fig. 1 and associated specifications).
As to claim 4, Wan as modified further teaches the configuration definition information is customizable by a user of the information handling system (…The management server142 may be a physical computer that provides a management console and other tools that are directly or remotely accessible to a system administrator or other user. The management server142 may be communicatively coupled to host-A110A ... host-N11ON (and hence communicatively coupled to the virtual machines, hypervisors, hardware, distributed storage system152, etc.) via the physical network112. The host-A110A ... host-N 11ON may in turn be configured as a data center (e.g., a SDDC) that is also managed by the management server 142…, lines 46-55 column 4).
As to claim 5, Wan as modified does not teach the local status information hardware includes at least one component selected from the group consisting of: light-emitting diodes, speakers configured to produce sound, and liquid-crystal displays having a diagonal size less than 8 inches.
Parker teaches an event notification system wherein a user configures events to be notified via local status notification hardware includes light-emitting diodes, speakers configured to produce sound, and liquid-crystal displays having a diagonal size less than 8 inches (small display of a portable phone, Fig. 1 and associated specifications; …a graphical user interface display for setting notification types to reminder type notifications. That is, a reminder is a particular type of notification event that is triggered in order to remind the user of something, such as a meeting time or a due date for a project, for example. These reminders are typically associated with a calendar type application program, as discussed in more detail below. Reminder type notification events may be set, using display 700 to trigger different types of notifications. For example, the reminders may be set to cause vibrations by checking box 702, display a message by checking display box 704, flash a light by checking light box 706 or to play a sound by checking sound box 708. If the sound box 708 is selected controls 710 are enabled, otherwise controls 710 are disabled. Controls 710 provide for the management of the types and volume of the sound that is played once a reminder initiates a notification…, lines 23-39 column 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wan reference to include the teachings of Parker reference because by using local status notification hardware, the system allows the user to select a preferred method to receive an event notification, as disclosed by Parker.
As to claim 6, Wan as modified further teaches a management controller configured to provide out-of-band management of the information handling system and further configured to cause the non-local status notifications to be output by the local status notification hardware (…A management server142 or other management entity of one embodiment can take the form of a physical computer with functionality to manage or otherwise control the operation of host-A110A ... host-N110N. In some embodiments, the functionality of the management server142 can be implemented in a virtual appliance, for example in the form of a single-purpose VM that may be run on one of the hosts in a cluster or on a host that is not in the cluster of hosts. The management server142 may be operable to collect usage data associated with the hosts and VMs (e.g., directly from the hosts and/or indirectly from the host via other network device(s) that receive usage data from the hosts), to configure and provision VMs, to activate or shut down VMs, to monitor health conditions and diagnose and remedy operational issues that pertain to health, and to perform other managerial tasks associated with the operation and use of the various elements in the virtualized computing environment 100..., lines 28-45 column 4).
As to claims 7-12, note the discussions of claims 1-6 above, respectively.
As to claims 13-18, note the discussions of claims 1-6 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Publication No. 2022/0035695 discloses a high-order management infrastructure which is communicable with a HCI node, and acquires operation information of the HCI node for detecting abnormality in the computer unit.
U.S Publication No. 2004/0006652 discloses a Windows environment that provides notification of events to OPC clients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andy Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-3762. A voice mail service is also available for this number. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or fax to:
AFTER-FINAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
OFFICAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
NON OFFICAL faxes should not be signed, please send to (571) 273 – 3762
/Andy Ho/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights