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 .
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 27 April 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 27 April 2026 amended claims 1, 14, and 20. Currently Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined. Claims 11 and 17 were canceled. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 April 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
With respect to the previous 101 rejection the specification describes a specific, well-defined technical problem in the field of workspace orchestration systems: workspace re-instantiation is resource-intensive, consuming CPU cycles, network bandwidth, and reserved memory; and on-demand acquisition of these resources is substantially more costly than pre-allocated long-term resource reservation (specification, paragraphs [0176]–[0178]). The specification further explains that predicting re-instantiation gives the workspace orchestration service time to free up or reassign resources from other users, and that proactive orchestration operations commenced when resources are available rather than when a threshold crossing occurs reduce the overall burden on enterprise orchestration infrastructure (paragraphs [0185]–[0188]). The amended claims reflect this disclosed improvement with specificity. The limitation requiring that a resource reference be included in the workspace definition specifically to anticipate a need for the resource prior to when the resource is needed triggered by a worsening score condition is not a general instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer. It is a particular way of solving a specific technical problem: the system pro-actively stages resource references into an incomplete workspace definition during a temporal window when resources are available, and only after an elapsed period (during which the resource has been staged) does it finalize the workspace definition. This temporal staging workflow constitutes a specific, ordered technical solution to the technical problem of expensive on-demand resource acquisition in enterprise workspace orchestration.
Under the improvement analysis mandated by MPEP § 2106.05(a), and as articulated in Enfish v. Microsoft, McRO v. Bandai Namco, SRI Int'l v. Cisco, and the Ex Parte Desjardins precedential decision, a claim directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem where the specification provides a technical explanation of the improvement and the claim reflects that improvement is not directed to a judicial exception. The specification here does precisely that. Paragraphs [0176]–[0188] provide a detailed technical explanation of why existing on-demand workspace instantiation is costly (resource-intensive, expensive short-notice acquisition), and how predictive, anticipatory orchestration solves that problem by pre-staging resources during periods of availability. The amended claims reflect this improvement through the specific limitations requiring score-trend-triggered resource availability determination, anticipatory resource reference inclusion, and elapsed-time-conditioned workspace definition creation. This is not a claim to the idea of a solution; it is a claim to a particular way of achieving a desired outcome the hallmark of integration into a practical application under McRO and DDR Holdings. The rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robison et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0249211 A1) (hereafter Robison) in view of Andrews et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0056727 A1) (hereafter Andrews).
Referring to Claim 1, Robison teaches a system for an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
a processor (see; Abstract of Robison teaches a processor).
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to (see; Abstract of Robison teaches memory coupled to a processor for use in an HIS).
predict, by a workspace orchestration service, instantiation of a workspace based, at least in part, upon a score associated with a client HIS (see; par. [0070] of Robison teaches determining rules are dynamically modified over time to generate improved workspaces (i.e. predict the next workspace, par. [0010]-[0011] based on security and productivity score as part of the client HIS).
Robison does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Andrews teaches in response to an indication that the score is worsening, determine that a resource is available (see; par. [0057]-[0060] of Andrews teaches a dynamic workspace, Fig. 2 discloses an example of the process of measuring the initial productivity and security (i.e. score) and then, par. [0071] – [0072] a reevaluation of the security and productivity targets are measured and if the score is below a threshold (i.e. worsening), par. [0089] then a resource provisioning service is configured (i.e. resource availability)), and
in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition to anticipate a need for the resource prior to when the resource is needed (see; par. [0089] of Andrews teaches a resource provisioning service is used to configure an IHS workspace based on, par. [0057]-[0060] a dynamic workspace, Fig. 2 discloses an example of the process of measuring the initial productivity and security (i.e. score) and then, par. [0071] – [0072] a reevaluation of the security and productivity targets are measured and if the score is below a threshold (i.e. worsening) and determine what is needed), par. [0089] then a resource provisioning service is configured (i.e. resource availability)), and
in response to the prediction after an elapsed period of time in which the reference has been included in the workspace definition, create a workspace definition usable by the client IHS to instantiate the workspace (see; Figure 2 and par. [0068] of Andrews teaches over time generate improved workspace definitions based on evaluated data regarding workspace definitions).
The Examiner notes that Robison teaches similar to the instant application teaches distributed orchestration using delegate. Specifically, Robison discloses the distributed orchestration delegating workspaces using a client Information Handling System (IHS) and assign management tasks it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Andrews teaches managing the degradation of information handling system and as it is comparable in certain respects to Robison which distributed orchestration using delegate as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Robison discloses the distributed orchestration delegating workspaces using a client Information Handling System (IHS) and assign management tasks. However,
Robison fails to disclose in response to an indication that the score is worsening, determine that a resource is available, in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition to anticipate a need for the resource prior to when the resource is needed, and in response to the prediction after an elapsed period of time in which the reference has been included in the workspace definition, create a workspace definition usable by the client IHS to instantiate the workspace.
Andrews discloses in response to an indication that the score is worsening, determine that a resource is available, in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition to anticipate a need for the resource prior to when the resource is needed, and in response to the prediction after an elapsed period of time in which the reference has been included in the workspace definition, create a workspace definition usable by the client IHS to instantiate the workspace.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Robison the in response to an indication that the score is worsening, determine that a resource is available, in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition to anticipate a need for the resource prior to when the resource is needed, and in response to the prediction after an elapsed period of time in which the reference has been included in the workspace definition, create a workspace definition usable by the client IHS to instantiate the workspace as taught by Andrews since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Robison, and Andrews teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to predictive workspace orchestration using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the client IHS has a current workspace instantiated, and wherein the workspace is a re-instantiation of the current workspace (see; par. [0064] of Robison teaches the client HIS and a workspace instantiated, and calculate security and productivity targets for a different instantiation of a workspace on HIS (i.e. re-instantiated)).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the client IHS has a current workspace instantiated based on a current workspace definition, and wherein the workspace definition is different from the current workspace definition (see; par. [0025] of Robison teaches as part of a HIS instantiation based on a workspace a different workspace configurations and switch between workspaces).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 3 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the workspace comprises at least one workspace component different than another workspace component of the current workspace (see; par. [0025] of Robison teaches as part of a HIS instantiation based on a workspace a different workspace configurations and switch between workspaces).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 4 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the workspace component is selected from the group consisting of: an application, a remote service, and a container (see; par. [0049] of Robison teaches a workspace that works in a container on a web application and can be used anywhere (i.e. remote service)).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the score comprises at least one of: a security score, or a productivity score (see; par. [0010] of Robison teaches a security risk score).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the program instructions, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to create the workspace definition before the score reaches a target (see; par. [0012] of Robison teaches enables instantiations of the delegate workspace based on workspace definition based on security targets).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 7 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
at least in part, based upon at least one of: an identification of a software application requested by a user of the client IHS or an identification of a datafile requested by a user of the client IHS, an identification of a locale of the client IHS, an identification of a user of the client IHS, an identification of a network of the client IHS, an identification of hardware of the client IHS, an identification of a requested datafile, an identification of a storage system of the requested datafile, an Information Technology (IT) administration level, a regulatory compliance level, a local storage control level, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) access level, a graphics access level, an application usage level, or an application installation level (see; par. [0060], [0062]-[0063] of Robison teaches a software application requested by user – “classification of the requested data source and/or application”, datafile requested by user – “the data and/or application being requested”, locale of the client IHS – “the location of IHS 100," physical environment 202”, user of the client IHS – “user 201, authentication factors used to identify user 201”, network of the client IHS networks in use by IHS 100, type of network, networks available to the IHS”, and par. [0060] and par. [0063] hardware of the client HIS, the hardware utilized by IHS 100, and the hardware of the HIS”.
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 7 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to transmit one or more files corresponding to the workspace definition to the client IHS in response to the score having reached the target (see; par. [0011]-[0012] of Robison teaches transmit of a file on a workspace in response to scoring).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 7 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to modify the target in response to frequent workspace instantiations by the client HIS (see; par. [0073] of Robison teaches reevaluation of the security and performance targets (i.e. modify) based on instantiated workspace).
in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition (see; par. [0012] of Robison teaches enabling instantiations of the delegate workspace, par. [0071] using specific reference measurements (i.e. include)).
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
in response to an indication that the score is stable or improving, determine that a resource is not necessary (see; par. [0010] of Robison teaches modify the risk based on the changing of a risk score (i.e. improving)).
in response to the determination, exclude any reference to the resource from the workspace definition (see; par. [0012] of Robison teaches enabling instantiations of the delegate workspace, par. [0071] using specific reference measurements (i.e. exclude)).
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches the system above, Robison further discloses a system having the limitations of:
cause the IHS to allocate the resource to another client IHS (see; Abstract of Robison teaches delegating resources executed by the client IHS).
Referring to Claim 14, Robison in view of Andrews teaches a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon. Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
security scores associated with a client IHS (par. [0014] of Robison teaches the score is a security score).
security scores reaching a threshold value (see; par. [0014] of Robison teaches the score is a security score).
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon above Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Robison in view of Andrews a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon above, Robison further discloses memory having the limitations of:
cause the IHS to transmit one or more files corresponding to the workspace definition to the client IHS in response to the security scores reaching the threshold value (see; par. [0012] of Robison teaches transmit a file based on a workspace definition and security target (i.e. threshold)).
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon above Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 12, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 12.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 18 above, while Robison in view of Andrews teaches a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 13, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 13.
Referring to Claim 20, Robison in view of Andrews teaches a method. Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and 14, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farley et al. (U.S. Patent 11,831,552 B1) discloses LCS resource device access control and management system.
Collard (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0250301 A1) discloses an automated assessment service system and solution MRI.
GLASS et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0108064 A1) discloses an automated workspace usage management methods and apparatus.
Gulas (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0111036 A1) discloses a dynamic workspace resource allocation and management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights