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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 8-20 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to clarify the directed subject matter of the claims such that it is directed to a system of physical components.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 12-13 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims have been amended such that they recite utilization of operational telemetry data readings from execution and utilization of the anchor information handling system within the first defined peripheral device workspace that identifies types of ports and current data and power connectivity at ports along with enterprise port connectivity requirement policies for those ports, and determining an automatic selection of new peripheral devices compatible with the identified available ports. The technical improvements are argued that the claims automatically avoid error conditions at the managed anchor information handling system from errant selection, and describe a particularized machine, and avoids operational degradation or connection errors.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any technical method of obtaining the telemetry data, merely reciting that the system receives telemetry data that indicates information about the ports. There is not any particular technical operation that identifies or detects the information of the ports. As such, the telemetry data merely represents data gathering. The selection of new peripheral devices also does not represent any technical endeavor, but a commercial process for product recommendations. The basis of the recommendation based on the port communication protocol and power requirements merely represent matching product specification with customer requirements, and does not represent any technical activity. The communication protocol and power requirements are simply product specifications, and as discussed above, are just received information to make a basis of a product that best suits the customer. As such, there is not any technical improvements or technical methods that result in the alleged avoiding error conditions and operational degradation. How the devices function remain unchanged. The alleged improvements are not any changes in computer functionality, but merely selecting compatible items.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The claims require piece-meal disclosure from various references to fully disclose the subject matter of the claims, and would only be possible with hindsight bias as discussed below.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-7 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of the prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons as set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claimed features of a cloud-based information handling system executing machine readable code instructions of a peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator comprising:
identify a first available port, including port type and data communication capability for data communication with the new peripheral device type via a communication protocol and power capability to power the new peripheral device type among the plurality of information handling system communication ports that were identified within the peripheral device operational telemetry data that is available for operative coupling with a new peripheral device type, wherein the new peripheral device type is not already listed in the manifest of the defined first peripheral device workspace;
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) discloses col. 6, ln. 37-42 – “After enumerating devices coupled to PCI bus 144, processor 122 compares PCI identification table 138 and PCI enumeration table 140. Processor 122 identifies which PCI slots 130 are not coupled to PCI devices, and these PCI slots 130 are "open" or available to be coupled to a PCI device”; Eichler: col. 6, ln. 43-61 – “The ability to identify open PCI slots 130 may be useful in many ways, such as in determining what product to install in computer 112. In this document, the term "product" refers to any hardware, software, and/or firmware that may be coupled to or used in conjunction with host 112. For example, a modem could be coupled to a PCI slot 130, LAN interface 132, or a USB port 134. In one embodiment, processor 122 may identify whether host 112 includes any available PCI slots 130. Processor 122 may also determine whether host 112 includes a LAN interface 132 and/or a USB port 134. Using this information, processor 122 may recommend the type of modem that may be installed in host 112. In one embodiment, processor 122 may recommend a USB modem if host 112 supports the USB standard. If not, processor 122 may determine whether any PCI slots 130 are open and recommend a PCI-based modem if a PCI slot 130 is available. Otherwise, processor 122 may determine whether a LAN interface 132 is present and recommend a LAN-based modem”
Eichler does not explicitly disclose a request for a peripheral device, and disclose determining a recommendation for a type of a product for the type of available port (such as recommending the modem type for a PCI slot, LAN interface, or USB port). Eichler also does not disclose receiving telemetry data to maintain current usage and connectivity at a system node and peripheral device nodes that have been previously coupled to the anchor handling system node.
Truong (US 20220394348 A1) discloses [0041] – “a connection status is detected for each of the plurality of USB ports. The connect status for each port may be displayed by a GUI to indicate possible locations of a connected device. At block 608, device information for each device connected to the plurality of USB ports is retrieved”; Truong: [0047] – “selection of a port operation is enabled via the GUI. For example, port operation capabilities may be identified and presented as a list when hovering over the port image (e.g., the portion of the chassis image or system board image that depicts the physical location of the port)”.
Truong does not disclose any recommendation of peripheral devices or identifying new peripheral devices that are compatible with the available port, its communication capability via the communication protocol, or power capabilities.
Hatambeiki (US 20220394348 A1) discloses [0079] – “Once the identification information is provided a compatibility check algorithm may be performed. The factors considered in this process may be similar to those previously enumerated above. In addition, the compatibility check may incorporate further steps such as verifying that a sufficient number of suitable connections and input/output ports are available to allow optimal integration of the proposed appliance, etc. Once compatibility checking is complete, the result may be presented to the consumer”.
While Hatambeiki does disclose recommending an accessory for use with the applicant, it is not directed to the particulars of identifying a peripheral device, and does not disclose operational telemetry data of connected devices, current usage and connectivity, or compatibility with any communication protocol or power requirement.
Jreij (US 20240111583 A1) discloses [0038] – “the SCP (113) may be configured to communicate with other hardware components (e.g., BMC (112), peripheral device(s) (122), peripheral root port(s) (120)) via one or more communication interfaces and protocols. As an example, SCP (113) may communicate via the SMBus (118) and/or a peripheral root port (120) using their corresponding protocols. In one or more embodiments, the SCP (113) may use the SMBus (118) and its various connections to each peripheral port (120, 121) and peripheral device (122) in order to maintain an “inventory” (e.g., in the peripheral database (132)) of available peripheral ports and installed peripheral devices”.
Jreij does not disclose recommending a peripheral device for use with the system, and does not disclose the operational telemetry data of connected peripheral devices, current usage and connectivity, or compatibility with any communication or power requirement.
Sueda (US 20220215435 A1) discloses [0050] – “the compatibility check may incorporate further steps such as verifying that a sufficient number of suitable connections and input/output ports are available to allow optimal integration of the proposed appliance in the system, etc. Once compatibility checking is complete, at step 220 the result may be displayed to the user as illustrated at screen 620. An exemplary display may include a summary 622 of the salient points considered in determining compatibility. Some embodiments may include an option for the display of additional information screens containing, for example, recommended interconnection schemes and methods, etc.”.
Sueda also lacks many features, such as the communication protocols and power requirements of the ports and using that information to identify the peripherals, and receiving operational telemetry data to maintain current usage and connectivity at a system node and peripheral device nodes that have been previously coupled to the anchor information handling system node.
PTO Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 1/23/2026) discloses a method of using an external device to access an internal USB Asset Information Device to take inventory of USB peripheral devices attached to the computer.
However, PTO Reference U does not disclose recommending a peripheral device for use with the system, and does not disclose the operational telemetry data of connected peripheral devices, current usage and connectivity, or compatibility with any communication or power requirement.
It was found that no references alone or in combination neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
identify a first available port, including port type and data communication capability for data communication with the new peripheral device type via a communication protocol and power capability to power the new peripheral device type among the plurality of information handling system communication ports that were identified within the peripheral device operational telemetry data that is available for operative coupling with a new peripheral device type, wherein the new peripheral device type is not already listed in the manifest of the defined first peripheral device workspace;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every features of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, claim 1-7 are free of the prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm EST.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights