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 Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 11 December 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 11 December 2025 amended claims 8 and 14-19. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 7 that “With respect to this rejection, and in light of Ex Parte Desjardins (§ 101 PTAB appeal decision (precedential)), dated December 5, 2025, and in accordance with the revised second and last paragraphs of MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)), Applicant believes the rejection under § 101 is not applicable to at least claims 5, 8, and 11-13 as these claims provide improvements in the functioning of a computer, or improvements to other technology or a technical field, and are therefore directed to patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, Applicant requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until the outcome of claims 5, 8, and 11-13 (as argued in the Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 section below) is determined by the Examiner. Accordingly, upon an indication by the Examiner of allowable subject matter of these claims, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the patent eligibility rejection of these claims”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that by following Ex parte Desjardins the Examiner applied the two-step framework set forth in Alice Corp (2014). Step 2A, Prong One asks whether the claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). Step 2A, Prong Two asks whether additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As emphasized in Desjardins, "the ultimate question" at Prong Two is "whether the exception is integrated into a practical application," requiring evaluation of "the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention".
With respect to the Step 2A Prong One Analysis the Independent claim 1 recites "predict, by a workspace orchestration service, instantiation of a workspace based, at least in part, upon a score associated with a client IHS" and "create a workspace definition usable by the client IHS to instantiate the workspace." These limitations recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, both recognized categories of abstract ideas under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claimed "prediction" of workspace instantiation based on score analysis constitutes evaluation and analysis of information that can be performed in the human mind, or with pen and paper. The determination that a score trend indicates future workspace needs is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claimed workspace orchestration deciding when to create workspace definitions, determining resource allocation, and managing system resources based on user context falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. These limitations describe managing personal behavior or relationships, managing IT resources, and organizing business operations for enterprise users. Accordingly, the claims recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two analysis the critical issue under Desjardins is whether the claims "integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application" through improvements to computer functionality or technical fields. However, the claims as currently drafted do not clearly and unambiguously reflect such integration. Desjardins distinguished between claims that merely "generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (ineligible) and claims directed to "an improvement in the functioning of a computer" (eligible). The Desjardins claims were eligible because they recited specific structural limitations reflecting the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." This language operationally specified how the model addressed catastrophic forgetting.
In contrast, Claim 1 here merely states the desired outcome, to predict instantiation, create a definition without operational detail on how the prediction or definition achieves the alleged improvements. The claim language is result-oriented, not implementation-specific. The claim does not recite the specific mechanism by which prediction occurs, how the predictive approach differs from conventional orchestration, what computational resources are saved or optimized, or how the workspace definition structure enables the alleged improvements. The broadest reasonable interpretation of "predict...instantiation of a workspace based, at least in part, upon a score" encompasses simple threshold comparison, statistical trend analysis, machine learning algorithms, or even human administrator judgment programmed into a rule. This breadth raises the question: does every implementation within this scope provide the alleged improvement? If not, the claim may be impermissibly broad or may not actually integrate the exception into a practical application.
While Specification par. [0021] describes advantages such as reduced storage and reduced complexity, the claims do not recite limitations that implement these advantages. There is no claim language addressing storage reduction mechanisms, no claim language specifying how predictions reduce computational overhead, and no claim language defining what makes a "workspace definition" technically improved over prior art. Per MPEP § 2106.05(a), "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology." The specification alone is insufficient; "the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification."
The dependent claims suffer from similar deficiencies. Claim 5 recites "wherein the workspace component is selected from the group consisting of: an application, a remote service, and a container," which merely specifies what components may be included, not how their selection improves computer functionality. This is a field-of-use limitation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 8 recites extensive factors for target calculation but merely lists inputs to a calculation without explaining how these inputs are technically processed, what makes this calculation a technical improvement versus conventional risk assessment, or whether the calculation method itself provides the improvement. Listing potential data inputs does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Claims 11-13 recite conditional resource allocation but do not clearly recite how this logic improves computer functionality beyond applying the abstract idea of resource allocation decision-making on a computer. The claims do not specify what computational mechanism enables this determination, how this differs from conventional resource management, or what technical problem is solved beyond applying business logic.
The claims recite implementation by "a workspace orchestration service" (generic service), "a processor" and "memory" (generic computer components), and "program instructions" (generic software). Desjardins warned against "essentially equating any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation." However, Desjardins is distinguishable because those claims recited specific technical operations on machine learning model parameters. Here, the claims recite predicting (mental process), creating a definition (organizing activity), and using generic computer components. Without more specific recitation of how the computer is improved, these claims appear to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than improving the computer itself.
Specification par. [0021] states that "systems that need to be able to achieve acceptable performance on multiple tasks can do so while using less of their storage capacity and having reduced system complexity." However, this is a conclusory statement of advantages without sufficient technical explanation of what specific mechanism enables reduced storage, how predictive orchestration achieves this reduction, or why the claimed approach is superior to conventional workspace management. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), "if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology."
The specification does not adequately explain how prediction algorithms operate, what computational methods enable the prediction, whether they are novel or conventional, how workspace definitions differ structurally, what makes a "predictively created" workspace definition technically different from a reactively created one, or provide quantification of improvements through data, benchmarks, or concrete examples. The specification does not identify what conventional systems do and how the invention improves upon them. Per Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., cited in Desjardins, the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement, and the specification must provide sufficient detail that the improvement would be apparent.
Desjardins relied heavily on Enfish, which held claims eligible where "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." In Enfish, the claims recited a specific data structure (self-referential table) that improved how computers store and retrieve data. The improvement was inherent in the claimed structure itself. Here, the claims recite predicting instantiation (abstract idea of prediction), creating a definition (abstract idea of planning), and basing decisions on a score (data analysis). These limitations do not inherently improve computer functionality. They describe using a computer to perform predictive analysis and resource management tasks that could be performed manually by an IT administrator. The claims lack the specificity present in Enfish, McRO, and Desjardins where the claimed structure or process itself embodied the technical improvement.
For the claims to overcome the 101 rejection under Desjardins, Applicant must demonstrate that the claims recite specific technical mechanisms that implement the improvements described in [0021], that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem in computer systems (not merely business efficiency), and that the solution is rooted in computer technology, not merely the application of an abstract idea on a generic computer. Currently, the claims fail to clearly demonstrate these elements. The term "predict...instantiation" is result-oriented language that does not recite machine learning model architecture, specific algorithmic approaches, data structures enabling efficient prediction, or how prediction differs from conventional threshold monitoring. Without these details, the claim reads on both technical implementations (potentially eligible) and abstract implementations (ineligible). This ambiguity must be resolved against patentability.
Similarly, "create a workspace definition" does not specify the data structure of the definition, how the definition enables reduced storage, what makes the definition "predictive" versus "reactive," or the technical format, encoding, or structure. The term "workspace definition" is indefinite regarding its technical character and contribution to the alleged improvement. Basing predictions on "a score associated with a client IHS" is a conventional data analysis approach. The claims do not explain what makes the score calculation technical versus abstract, how score trends are computationally determined, or what algorithmic innovation enables the prediction.
The claims do not clearly integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the claim language is result-oriented rather than implementation-specific, no specific technical mechanisms are recited that reflect the alleged improvements, the specification lacks sufficient technical detail to support that a POSITA would recognize the improvement, the claims encompass abstract implementations that do not improve computer technology, and generic computer components are invoked without explanation of technical integration. Per Desjardins, claims "generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not patent eligible." The claims here generally link predictive analysis and resource management to the workspace orchestration field without clearly reciting how computer functionality is improved. Accordingly, the claims are directed to abstract ideas and do not integrate those ideas into practical applications.
Should the claims be found "directed to" an abstract idea, Step 2B asks whether additional elements provide an "inventive concept." The additional elements recited in the claims are "a processor" (generic), "a memory" (generic), "program instructions" (generic), and "workspace orchestration service" (generic service implementation). These elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are generic computer components performing generic computer functions.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may amend claims to recite specific technical mechanisms that implement the prediction and workspace definition creation, such as specific algorithmic approaches, data structures enabling the improvements, or technical process steps that operationally define how improvements are achieved. Applicant may provide technical evidence (e.g., declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132) establishing how a POSITA would recognize the claimed invention as improving computer technology, technical details of how prediction reduces computational overhead, and concrete examples demonstrating the improvements. Applicant may amend the specification (if permissible) to provide greater technical detail supporting the improvements and ensuring claims reflect those improvements. Applicant may also clarify through argument how the claims, as currently drafted, specifically and
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. While Ex parte Desjardins provides a pathway to eligibility for claims directed to improvements in computer functionality or technical fields, the claims here do not clearly and unambiguously traverse that pathway because they recite abstract ideas, use result-oriented functional language without implementation specificity, fail to clearly recite how computer functionality is improved, lack technical detail connecting the claimed elements to the alleged improvements, and read on both technical and non-technical implementations. The burden is on Applicant to clearly demonstrate that the claims integrate judicial exceptions into practical applications through improvements to technology, as required by Desjardins and current USPTO guidance.
The Applicant argues on page 7 that “Robinson does not teach a workspace component (which is part of the workspace per claim 4 from which claim 5 depends).” While this portion of the argument was integrated into the argument for claim 5, the Examiner is providing a response as context is needed to address claim 5.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the Argument Robinson regarding claim 4 explicitly teaches this limitation at the originally cited paragraph and multiple supporting locations: specifically in par. [0025] (originally cited - workspace instantiation and management): This teaching directly establishes that: A workspace is instantiated based on a configuration/definition, multiple different configurations/definitions are possible, the system switches between different workspace configurations, and these configurations change based on context. For additional context the Examiner notes that in par. [0073]-[0074] (orchestration phase 200B - dynamic workspace modification), discloses a confirmation that the system maintains a current workspace (based on a current definition) and creates or modifies workspaces using different definitions. Additionally figure 208 discloses an adaptive workspace definition, where "workspace definition attributes may be dynamically selected based upon historical productivity and security information, based upon each individual user or group's behavior." Finally, for additional context par. [0067] discloses an example of a workspace definition structure:
It is noted that the originally cited par. [0025] establishes the foundational teaching that workspaces operate under different configurations and the system switches between them, which directly anticipates the limitation that a workspace definition differs from a current workspace definition. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 7 that “a workspace component (which is part of the workspace per claim 4 from which claim 5 depends) as an application, a remote service, or a container, as required by claim 5. The OA mentioned on page 12 that "par. [0049] of Robinson teaches a workspace that works in a container..." which is not what is being claimed. Instead, a particular workspace component (i.e., an application, a remote service, or a container) is being claimed”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the Argument Robinson explicitly teaches "The IHS of claim 4, wherein the workspace comprises at least one workspace component different than another workspace component of the current workspace." It is viewed that Robinson explicitly teaches different workspace components at the originally cited paragraph and supporting locations. In the previously sited par. [0049] which was originally cited - workspace architecture variations): This paragraph directly teaches multiple different workspace component types: container application, web-browser application, cloud resource, primary workspace, subordinate workspaces.
For additional clarification in par. [0067] (workspace definition components) and provides examples. Furthermore, in par. [0142]-[0144] provides a use case where the specific different components. This can be compared to par. [0134]-[0136] which is a different component set), then in par. [0069] teaches subordinate workspaces as different components. When combined with the originally sited par. [0049] paragraphs [0067], [0069], and [0142]-[0144] clearly teaches that when workspace definitions change (Claim 4), the workspace components change accordingly/ The originally cited par. [0049] provides the foundational teaching that workspaces can operate using vastly different component architectures (virtual machine vs. container vs. web-browser vs. cloud-based), and these different architectures necessarily include different workspace components. The "workspace component" in Application 18/427,910 Claim 5 is defined as being "selected from the group consisting of: an application, a remote service, and a container." Robinson explicitly teaches all three: par. [0049], [0067] disclose "primary applications," "additional applications," "web-browser application”. Paragraph [0049] and par. [0142]: "cloud resource," "VPN", and par. [0049], [0067], and [0142] "container application," "docker container," "sandbox," "local container technology". Therefore, it is maintained that paragraph [0049] directly teaches multiple different workspace component types: container application, web-browser application, cloud resource, primary workspace, subordinate workspaces.
The Applicant argues on page 8 that “Robinson does not teach determining that a resource is available, let alone determining that a resource is available in response to an indication that a score is worsening, as required by claim 11. Robinson's cited portion [0010] does not teach this limitation. Additionally, Robinson does not teach including a reference to a resource in the workspace definition in response to the determination that a resource is available, as also required by claim 11. Robinson's cited portions [0012] and [0071] do not teach this limitation”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the Argument Robinson explicitly teaches the claim limitation states “in response to an indication that the score is worsening, determine that a resource is available; and in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition."
Robinson explicitly teaches this limitation at the originally cited paragraphs and supporting locations: Par. [0010] (originally cited - Abstract teaching). This paragraph teaches that when a score changes (including worsening), the system identifies additional tasks/resources to be assigned and modifies workspace assignments accordingly. Additionally, the previously sited par. [0012] (workspace definition creation based on targets) and this is viewed to establishes that workspace definitions are created based on calculated targets, which change based on context. Finally, par. [0071] (ongoing evaluation and adaptation), where this paragraph explicitly teaches that as context changes (score worsens), targets are reevaluated and new workspace definitions are produced.
For additional clarification par. [0073] which provides support for response to worsening scores) and par. [0090]-[0091] which further provides support by adding security components when risk increases which is viewed to directly teach that when scores worsen (increase in risk score), the system determines security procedures (resources) are needed and includes them in workspace definition modifications. Furthermore for clarification par. [0142]-[0144] discloses a use case B by adding resources for higher risk, where as use Case A (low risk, score=2) to Use Case B (higher risk, score=4), whereas compared to Use Case A (par. [0134]-[0136]) where these resources were NOT included. Additionally, par. [0067] which discloses the supporting workspace definition includes resource references. The combination of [0010], [0012], and par. [0071 (originally cited), and supporting paragraphs par. [0073], [0090]-[0091], [0142]-[0144], and par. [0067] clearly teaches: "Indication that score is worsening", "Determine that a resource is available”, "Include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition”. Finally, is noted that the originally cited par. [0010], [0012], and [0071] provide the foundational teaching that the system monitors score changes, determines appropriate resources based on those changes, and includes references to those resources in workspace definitions. The supporting paragraphs provide concrete implementations of this teaching. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 8 that “determining that a resource is not necessary, let alone determining that a resource is not necessary in response to an indication that a score is stable or improving, as required by claim 12. Robinson's cited portion [0010] does not teach this limitation. Additionally, Robinson does not teach excluding any reference to a resource from the workspace definition in response to the determination that a resource is not necessary, as also required by claim 12. Robinson's cited portions [0012] and [0071] do not teach this limitation”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the Argument the Examiner notes that Robinson explicitly teaches With respect the arguments the claim states “in response to an indication that the score is stable or improving, determine that a resource is not necessary; and in response to the determination, exclude any reference to the resource from the workspace definition." Robinson is viewed to teaching the converse operation - removing resources when scores improve - at the originally cited paragraphs and supporting locations. Specifically, the originally sited par. [0010] teaches bidirectional resource adjustment. Where the program instructions, upon execution, may further cause the remote orchestrator to identify additional or fewer management tasks to be assigned to the delegate workspace, at least in part, based upon a change to the productivity score. The phrase "additional or fewer" explicitly teaches bidirectional modification - both adding resources (Claim 11) and removing/excluding resources (Claim 12) based on score changes. This is a direct teaching of the claimed limitation. Additionally with the previously cited par. [0012] (workspace definition creation based on targets). Where with respect to the argument the Examiner notes that Robinson teaches the converse operation removing resources when scores improve at the originally cited paragraphs and supporting locations. When targets improve (lower security risk required), workspace definitions are created with fewer security components, thus excluding references to unnecessary resources. Paragraph [0071] (bidirectional workspace adaptation) is viewed as teaching when context changes (including improvements), new workspace definitions are produced. These new definitions necessarily exclude resources that are no longer necessary for the improved security context.
Additionally, for further clarification in par. [0073]-[0074] (reducing workspace complexity when appropriate) teaches bidirectional modification - both adding AND removing components based on score changes. Paragraph [0090]-[0091] (dynamic alignment of risk and resources), where the term "appropriately aligning" necessarily includes REMOVING unnecessary resources when risk decreases, just as it includes ADDING resources when risk increases (Claim 11). The system must work in both directions to maintain appropriate alignment. Paragraph [0151]-[0153) includes extensive resources for high risk (score=9): "threat monitoring: 10... threat detection: 10... storage confidentiality: 10... network confidentiality: 10... user authentication: 10 (high, three-factor authentication using login, hardware token, and biometric satellite watch)". Use Case B par. [0142]-[0144] includes moderate resources for medium risk (score=4): "threat monitoring: 5... storage confidentiality: 5... network confidentiality: 5... user authentication: 4". Use Case A par. [0133]-[0136] includes minimal resources for low risk (score=2): "threat monitoring: 1 (local management agent does not install threat, detection, and response or "TDR" software)... network confidentiality: 1... user authentication: 1 (local agent confirms basic GPO password rules)"
The progression from “Use Case C to Use Case B to Use Case A” explicitly shows that as scores improve, resources are excluded from workspace definitions. For example: Finally, par. [0208] (adaptive workspace definitions): "workspace definition attributes may be dynamically selected based upon historical productivity and security information”. Dynamic selection necessarily includes both including and excluding attributes based on current conditions.
The combination of par. [0010], par. [0012], par. [0071] (previously cited), and supporting paragraphs par. [0073], [0090]-[0091], par. [0133]-[0153], and par. [02080 clearly teaches: "The originally cited par. [0010] provides the clearest teaching with its explicit language "additional or fewer" management tasks based on score changes. This directly teaches both adding resources and excluding/removing resources (Claim 12) based on whether scores worsen or improve. The originally cited par. [0012] and [0071] confirm that workspace definitions are dynamically created based on current targets, necessarily excluding resources that are unnecessary for improved security contexts. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 8 that “Robinson does not teach an IHS allocating a resource to another client IHS, as required by claim 13. The Office Action points to Robinson's Abstract in support of this teaching by stating "Abstract of Robinson teaches delegating resources executed by the client IHS". However, Applicant submits that a delegation of resources executed by a client IHS is not a clear and affirmative teaching of an IHS allocating a resource to another client IHS.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that the claim states “cause the IHS to allocate the resource to another client IHS." Robinson explicitly teaches resource allocation among multiple client IHSs at the originally cited abstract and supporting locations. Abstract (distributed orchestration system): With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that Robinson teaches the converse operation - removing resources when scores improve at the originally cited paragraphs and supporting locations: This directly teaches that management tasks (resources) are assigned/allocated from one IHS to another IHS based on workspace information.
For additional clarification par. [0187]-[0189] discloses distributed orchestration system which teaches that computational resources and data storage (resources) are distributed/allocated among different IHSs. Paragraph [0191]-[0196] discloses resource allocation to delegate workspaces, which is viewed to teach that orchestration operations (resources) are allocated from one workspace to another, across different client IHSs. Paragraph [0198] discloses assigning management tasks. Specifically, par. [0192]-[0193] selecting IHSs for task allocation, this teaches that when resources (management tasks) are needed, the system selects another client IHS to which those resources will be allocated based on scores. Paragraph [0204] discloses supporting - selecting delegate workspace based on scores and par. [0205] reallocating based on score changes), this directly teaches that when scores change (including worsening per claim 11), resources are reallocated to another client IHS. The connection to claim 11 context (resources added when score worsens) is established through the combination of the originally cited Abstract and supporting paragraphs: This directly corresponds to claim 13's teaching that when resources are determined available and included in workspace definitions (Claim 11), they can be allocated to another client HIS. The originally cited Abstract provides the foundational teaching that the entire system is designed to assign/allocate management tasks (resources) from one IHS to another IHS, forming a distributed orchestration architecture. This allocation occurs based on workspace information including scores, which ties directly to the claim 11 limitation that resources are added when scores worsen. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14-19 is directed towards a memory storage device whose contents provide instructions for predicting and creating a workspace. It is construed that these components lacks physical structure and is not statutory because it is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It must be clear in the claim language that the computer readable medium is "non-transitory" and currently it is not clear. Thus claim 14-19 is non-statutory and therefore rejected.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 3 19 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 21 1 1.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. @ 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. j 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1-20 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a predictive workspace orchestration using an information handling system without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-13) is/are directed to a system, claim(s) (14-19) is/ are directed to a memory storage device, and claims(s) (20) is/are directed to a method and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of predictive workspace orchestration using an information handling system which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a processor language, the claim encompasses the user predicting the workspace. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process.
The predicting of instantiation of a workspace as identified would clearly be a mental activity that a company would go through in order to predict the instantiation of a workspace. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to predict the instantiation of a workspace.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that workspace creating steps required to use the predicting step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the predicting step. The processor in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (the predicting the workspace). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): creating a workspace performs the predicting step. The creating step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of creating a workspace for use in the predicting step), and amounts to mere data displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the predicting step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the predicting step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, where it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) predicting instantiations of a workspace and creating a workspace which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for predicting and creating which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (predictive workspace orchestration using an information handling system) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to predict workspace orchestration using an information handling system). Using a computer to predicting and creating the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The predictive workspace orchestration using an information handling system would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to instantiate a workspace. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to create a workspace:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 19 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the status and tracking devices. This is not a technical problem but rather in the realm of asset management and therefore an abstract idea.
Claims 3-6, 8, and 15 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the instantiation of a workspace. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of predicting a workspace.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims create that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art Robinson provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0249211 A1) (hereafter Robinson).
Referring to Claim 1, Robinson teaches a system for an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
a processor (see; Abstract of Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson 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).
in response to the prediction, create a workspace definition usable by the client IHS to instantiate the workspace (see; par. [0012] of Robinson teaches create a workspace definition based on productivity and security target).
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson teaches a security risk score).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson teaches transmit of a file on a workspace in response to scoring).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 7 above, while Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson teaches reevaluation of the security and performance targets (i.e. modify) based on instantiated workspace).
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson further discloses a system having the limitations of:
in response to an indication that the score is worsening, determine that a resource is available (see; par. [0010] of Robinson teaches modify the risk based on the changing of a risk score (i.e. worsening)).
in response to the determination, include a reference to the resource in the workspace definition (see; par. [0012] of Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the system above, Robinson further discloses a system having the limitations of:
cause the IHS to allocate the resource to another client IHS (see; Abstract of Robinson teaches delegating resources executed by the client IHS).
Referring to Claim 14, Robinson 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 Robinson teaches the score is a security score).
security scores reaching a threshold value (see; par. [0014] of Robinson teaches the score is a security score).
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Robinson 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 Robinson a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon above, Robinson 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 Robinson teaches transmit a file based on a workspace definition and security target (i.e. threshold)).
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Robinson a non-transitory memory storage device having program instructions stored thereon above, Robinson further discloses memory having the limitations of:
in response to an indication that the security score is worsening, determine that a resource is available (see; par. [0010] of Robinson teaches modify the risk based on the changing of a risk score (i.e. worsening)).
in response to the determination, include a reference to a selected workspace component in the workspace definition (see; par. [0012] of Robinson teaches enabling instantiations of the delegate workspace, par. [0071] using specific reference measurements (i.e. include)).
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Robinson 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 Robinson 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, Robinson 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.
Andrews et al. (U.S. Patent 11,316,902 B2) discloses systems and methods for securing a dynamic workspace in an enterprise productivity ecosystem.
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 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