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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the remark, applicant argued: “Currently presented claim 1 recites a processor configured, in part, to:
"load, for the process of the application, a user mode driver of a previously staged
graphics driver package different from a most-recently staged graphics driver
package."
Desai does not teach or suggest that limitation because Desai is directed to a cloud-based instrument driver system in which a remote "driver cloud" stores drivers and ancillary software for instruments. Desai explains that "a cloud-based instrument driver system enables a user device to interact with one or more instruments through a driver cloud remotely located from the user device and instruments" (Overview), that "[t]he driver cloud may include one or more computer nodes ... that stores drivers (from different vendors and for different instruments) and ancillary software" (Overview), that "[t]he user device thus relays commands and responses to and from the instrument to the driver cloud for translation" (Overview), and that "[u]tilization of the driver cloud7
obviates the need to obtain, install and maintain any drivers and/or ancillary software on the user device" (Overview).“ This argument is focused on new claim amendment. See new ground of rejection below for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 3. “select . . . “ is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "database" or "computer systems", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
“receive . . . update . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim also recites the additional element "execute the process of the first application using the first user mode driver to translate instructions of the first application to commands", does not require any particular application of the recited “execute...” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The circuitry, processor in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As discusses above, “receive . . . update . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim also recites the additional element "execute the process of the first application using the first user mode driver to translate instructions of the first application to commands", does not require any particular application of the recited “execute...” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). “load . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Desai . The claim is ineligible
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al (US 8726298 ) (hereinafter Desai) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Background, Spec) (hereinafter AAPA).
As per claim 1, Desai teaches:
A processor comprising:
circuitry configured to:
receive a process of an application (Desai, Fig 5, 550—under BRI, receiving a process of a 1st application can be receiving commands [process of an application] for processing);
load, for the process of the application, a user mode driver of a previously staged driver package different from a most-recently staged graphics driver package (Desai, col2, ll 10-12, col3 ll13-14—under BRI, loading a driver can be storing a driver; under BRI, a most-recently staged graphics driver package can be non-previously selected driver package); and
execute the process of the application using the first user mode driver to translate instructions of the application to commands (Desai, Fig 5, 535—under BRI, executing . . . to translate can be invoking driver to translate).
Desai does not expressly teach:
wherein the driver package is graphics driver package;
However, AAPA discloses:
wherein the driver package is graphics driver package (AAPA, [0001]);
Both AAPA and Desai pertain to the art of driver management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AAPA’s method to use a graphics driver because it is well-known in the art that video graphics applications rely on graphics drivers for support. A PHOSITA would thus know to use graphics drivers to make Desai’s system more versatile.
As per claim 7, Desai/AAPA teaches:
The processor as recited in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the circuitry is further configured to store a copy of the user mode driver in a protected holding location in a memory before loading the user mode driver for the process of the application (Desai, col 2, ll 10-12, cl , ll 24-27—under BRI, a protected holding location in a memory can be deriver stored in a different VM [each VM OS is protected from another VM]).
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 7.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai/AAPA as applied above, and further in view of Wilt et al (US 2003/0140179) (hereinafter Wilt).
As per claim 2, Desai/AAPA teaches:
The processor as recited in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Desai/AAPA does not expressly teach:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to execute the process of the first application using a kernel mode driver of the most- recently staged graphics driver package.
However, Wilt discloses:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to execute the process of the first application using a kernel mode driver of the most- recently staged graphics driver package (Wilt, [0156]) .
Both Wilt and Desai/AAPA pertain to the art of driver management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wilt’s method to execute a process with a kernel mode driver because it is well-known in the art that kernel-mode drivers offer benefits like direct hardware access, lower latency, and efficient resource sharing, enabling high-performance hardware interaction, deeper system monitoring (e.g., processes, memory), and essential functions like graphics/storage control.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 2.
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 CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights