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 1-20 were subject to restriction.
Claims 1-7 have been elected, and are rejected.
Claims 8-20 are non-elected, and have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) pr 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 recites a peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator executing at a cloud-based information handling system comprising:
a network interface device…
a hardware processor executing code instructions…
As written, the preamble establishes that the claim is directed to a peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator that is characterized by its execution at a cloud-based information handling system. It is unclear how the recitation of the cloud-based information handling system further limits the workplace cloud orchestrator, and it is unclear whether the network interface device and the hardware processor executing code instructions further limits the workplace cloud orchestrator or the cloud-based information handling system.
Figure 1 shows the peripheral cloud workspace cloud orchestrator as a cloud entity that involves, but is a distinct entity from, the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator server and other devices/databases. By broadest reasonable interpretation as understood in view of the specification (e.g., [0021]), the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator is software. Furthermore, if the components are meant to be comprised by the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator, it is also unclear how the software would be comprised of hardware components.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims will be analyzed as being directed to a cloud-based information handling system configured to execute a workspace cloud orchestrator. Appropriate clarification of the language is required.
Regarding Claims 2-7: Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, and inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. As such, dependent claims 2-7 are rejected along with claim 1 for at least the reasons above.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator executing at a cloud-based information handling system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-7 are directed to one of the four stator categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 1 sets forth the following limitations (emphasized in bold) of reciting the abstract idea of recommending peripheral devices for purchase:
receive a peripheral device operational telemetry data reading indicating one or more of a plurality of communication port functional capabilities for each of a plurality of information handling system communication ports at an anchor user information handling system node and for a first plurality of peripheral device nodes that have been previously operatively coupled to the anchor information handling system node at an identified location in a manifest of device nodes to form a defined first peripheral device workspace identified by a first peripheral device workspace identification value;
identify an available port for communication via a communication protocol within the plurality of information handling system communication ports shown within the peripheral device operational telemetry data reading that is functional and available for operative coupling with a new peripheral device not listed in the manifest;
generate a recommend user purchase of the new peripheral device that can operatively couple with the available port using the communication protocol.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for recommending peripheral devices for purchase. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to receiving data to determine information of a list of peripheral devices (inventory) and identify available ports to recommend purchase of devices that can connect to those ports, which is an sales and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
a network interface device to receive a peripheral device operational telemetry data reading indicating one or more of a plurality of communication port functional capabilities for each of a plurality of information handling system communication ports at an anchor user information handling system node and for a first plurality of peripheral device nodes that have been previously operatively coupled to the anchor information handling system node at an identified location in a manifest of device nodes to form a defined first peripheral device workspace identified by a first peripheral device workspace identification value;
a hardware processor executing code instructions of the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator to identify an available port for communication via a communication protocol within the plurality of information handling system communication ports shown within the peripheral device operational telemetry data reading that is functional and available for operative coupling with a new peripheral device not listed in the manifest;
the hardware processor executing code to generate a recommend user purchase of the new peripheral device that can operatively couple with the available port using the communication protocol.
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a network interface device and hardware processor as executing the steps of the claims, these elements are recited with a very high level of generalization. Specification paragraph [0026] discloses the hardware processor may be a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, embedded controller, or any combination thereof. Specification paragraph [0030] defines the network interface device as a wireless interface adapter to provide connectivity among services such as with Bluetooth®, a wide area network, a local area network, etc. As such, it is evident that these elements are any generic computing component, and are not any particular devices. The network interface device and hardware processor are only implemented to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment. Additionally, although the claims recite additional elements such as communication port functional capabilities, an anchor user information handling system node, and communication protocols, the claims do not address the underlying technology of these elements, but merely involve these elements as a technical product for the abstract process. These elements merely represent a collection of information that is used to determine a product recommendation, and do not change or improve how communication ports, system nodes, or communication protocols operate.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 20, such as by further defining the algorithm of recommending peripheral devices for purchase, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-7 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., USB-A (claim 2); USB-C (claim 3); a remote vendor sever (claim 5); a database (claim 7)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-7 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-7 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-7 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) in view of Truong (US 20180285229 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Eichler discloses a system comprising:
a hardware processor executing code instruction of the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator to identify an available port for communication via a communication protocol within the plurality of information handling system communication ports shown within the peripheral device operational telemetry data reading that is functional and available for operative coupling with a new peripheral device not listed in the manifest; (Eichler: 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. 47-61 – “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.”).
the hardware processor executing code instructions to generate a recommend user purchase of the new peripheral device that can operatively couple with the available port using the communication protocol. (Eichler: col. 6, ln. 50-61 – “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 teach a network interface device to receive a peripheral device operational telemetry data reading indicating one or more of a plurality of communication port functional capabilities for each of a plurality of information handling system communication ports at an anchor user information handling system node and for a first plurality of peripheral device nodes that have been previously operatively coupled to the anchor information handling system node at an identified location in a manifest of device nodes to form a defined first peripheral device workspace identified by a first peripheral device workspace identification value; Notably, however, Eichler does disclose a table of slots and identifying slots coupled to devices (Eichler: col. 6, ln. 22-29).
To that accord, Truong does teach a network interface device to receive a peripheral device operational telemetry data reading indicating one or more of a plurality of communication port functional capabilities for each of a plurality of information handling system communication ports at an anchor user information handling system node and for a first plurality of peripheral device nodes that have been previously operatively coupled to the anchor information handling system node at an identified location in a manifest of device nodes to form a defined first peripheral device workspace identified by a first peripheral device workspace identification value; (Truong: [0040-0041] – “a register of a super IO chip may contain the value based on the system board configuration and the identifier engine 104 of FIG. 1 may perform the identifier retrieval from the register at block 602. At block 604, physical port information is looked up in a lookup table using the system identifier retrieved at block 602… [0041] At block 606, 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; Truong: [0047] – “port operation capabilities may be identified and presented as a list when hovering over the port image”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Eichler disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots with the telemetry data of communication port functional capabilities and a manifest of coupled peripheral devices as taught by Truong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to organize the information of what devices are connected to each port (Eichler: [0007]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) and Truong (US 20180285229 A1), in view of Chu (US 20230035480 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Eichler and Truong discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the available port for communication via the communication protocol within the plurality of information handling system communications is the Universal Serial Bus A (USB-A) protocol. Notably, however, Eichler does disclose identifying available USB ports (Eichler: col. 13, ln. 10-12).
To that accord, Chu does teach wherein the available port for communication via the communication protocol within the plurality of information handling system communications is the Universal Serial Bus A (USB-A) protocol. (Chu: [0030] – “USB hub 260 can provide a number of USB input/output (I/O) ports to send and receive data from one or more peripheral computing devices. Some I/O ports may include USB-C with PD port 262 (connector with charging capability), USB-A port 264”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Eichler and Truong disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots, including USB slots as disclosed by Eichler, with the port being of the USB-A protocol as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to connect more peripheral devices of any suitable connection (Chu: [0030]).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Eichler and Truong discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the available port communication protocol is the Universal Serial Bus C (USB-C) protocol. (Chu: [0030] – “USB hub 260 can provide a number of USB input/output (I/O) ports to send and receive data from one or more peripheral computing devices. Some I/O ports may include USB-C with PD port 262 (connector with charging capability), USB-A port 264”, USB-C port 266).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Eichler and Truong disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots, including USB slots as disclosed by Eichler, with the port being of the USB-C protocol as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to connect more peripheral devices of any suitable connection (Chu: [0030]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) and Truong (US 20180285229 A1), in view of Dal Zotto (US 20250004953 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Eichler and Truong discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach a network interface device to receive a user composite peripheral device workspace identifier for a user of the anchor information handling system mode and selection input from a user to identify the first peripheral device workspace. Notably, however, Eichler does disclose communication links to facilitate communication between a host or server and a network (Eichler: col. 12, ln. 62-67).
To that accord, Dal Zotto does teach a network interface device to receive a user composite peripheral device workspace identifier for a user of the anchor information handling system mode and selection input from a user to identify the first peripheral device workspace. (Dal Zotto: [0022] – “the data structure is stored to a remote storage device communicatively coupled to the electronic device, as shown and described below with respect to FIG. 3. The remote storage device is communicatively coupled to the electronic device via a network connection”; Dal Zotto: [0042] – “responsive to a selection of the first configuration profile, configure a peripheral device, an application, or a combination thereof, according to a first setting (e.g., the setting 422) of the first configuration profile. The machine-readable instruction 516, when executed by the processor 502, causes the processor 502 to, responsive to a selection of the second configuration profile, configure the peripheral device, the application, or a combination thereof, according to a second setting (e.g., the setting 426) of the second configuration profile”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Eichler and Truong disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots communicating over a network, with the receiving of a peripheral device workspace identifier and a selection input from a user to identify the first peripheral device workspace as taught by Dal Zotto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to adjust access to peripheral devices and other settings based on the environment of the user (Dal Zotto: [0008-0009]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) and Truong (US 20180285229 A1), in view of Lagoni (US 20160260152 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Eichler and Truong discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the hardware processor executing code instructions to instruct a product purchase platform executing at a remote vendor server to filter user search results for potential purchase of the new peripheral device to include a plurality of available peripheral devices for purchase from the product purchase platform can operatively couple with the available port using the communication protocol. Notably, however, Eichler does disclose recommending products for user with the host based on the available PCI, LAN, or USB ports (Eichler: col. 13, ln. 10-14).
To that accord, Lagoni does teach the hardware processor executing code instructions to instruct a product purchase platform executing at a remote vendor server to filter user search results for potential purchase of the new peripheral device to include a plurality of available peripheral devices for purchase from the product purchase platform can operatively couple with the available port using the communication protocol.(Lagoni: [0062] – “the model number is automatically populated from a different system or server. For example, a service can be running on a first server, wherein the service determines a model number for which the service requests replacement part information. The first server can then communicate the model number to the replacement part system running on a second server” (product purchase platform executing at a remote server); Lagoni: [0072] – “an element can be included on a network page that asks whether the user is interested in filtering the results based on product compatibility. If the user indicates this desire, the replacement part system can filter the results of the search without taking the user away from the network pages provided by the electronic commerce system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Eichler and Truong disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots to use with the host device with the remote vendor server to filter user search results for potential new purchase as taught by Lagoni. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to limit results to products that can be used with a product even if the product did not include it when manufactured (Lagoni: [0018]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) and Truong (US 20180285229 A1), in view of Greenberger (US 20200097275 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Eichler and Truong discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Eichler further discloses the network interface device to receive a user selection of a potential new peripheral device for incorporation with the first peripheral device workspace; (Eichler: col. 13, ln. 18-21 – “The application 848 may, for example, present the user with a list of all identified products and allow the user to select one or more of the products.”).
The combination does not explicitly teach further comprising:
the hardware processor executing code instructions to determine none of one or more functional and available ports for communication within the plurality of information handling system communication ports, as identified within the peripheral device operational telemetry data reading meet the communication protocol requirement for the potential new peripheral device;
the hardware processor executing code instructions to generate a second recommend user purchase of an alternative peripheral device as the new peripheral device instead of the potential new peripheral device.
Notably, however, Eichler does disclose recommending products for user with the host based on the available PCI, LAN, or USB ports (Eichler: col. 13, ln. 10-14).
To that accord, Greenberger does teach further comprising:
the hardware processor executing code instructions to determine none of one or more functional and available ports for communication within the plurality of information handling system communication ports, as identified within the peripheral device operational telemetry data reading meet the communication protocol requirement for the potential new peripheral device; (Greenberger: [0033] – “the item compatibility engine 130 compares the product prerequisites to the current inventory of a user. In this exemplary embodiment, the item compatibility engine 130 can provide context-specific information based on the cart contents of the user, by assessing the product, looking at the product specifications to determine compatible products, and notifying the user if the product does not match any items in the inventory.”).
the hardware processor executing code instructions to generate a second recommend user purchase of an alternative peripheral device as the new peripheral device instead of the potential new peripheral device. (Greenberger: [0038] – “If, in step 410, the item compatibility engine 130 determines that the product is not compatible with the current user's environment, then in step 412, the item compatibility engine 130 provides recommendations to the user. In one embodiment, if the system determines that the product may overburden the existing environment (i.e., high use of resources), then a warning may be issued to the user. If the system determines that an alternative product in the same store would provide greater compatibility, then the system may output a recommendation to the user to purchase the alternative product.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Eichler and Truong disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots to use with the host device with the determining that none of the ports meet the requirements and providing recommendations of an alternative product as taught by Greenberger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to check for system level compatibility for system level requirements before the consumer makes any purchase decision (Greenberger: [0002-0003]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Eichler (US 6,772,252 B1) and Truong (US 20180285229 A1), in view of Blanc (US 20150142993 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Eichler and Truong discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the hardware processor executing code instructions to determine that the new peripheral device has power requirements that can be met by a power delivery capability for the available port and can be operatively coupled with the available port using the communication protocol through reference to an orchestrated device descriptor (ODD) for the new peripheral device stored in a database at the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator. Notably, however, Eichler does disclose recommending products for user with the host based on the available PCI, LAN, or USB ports (Eichler: col. 13, ln. 10-14), and Truong does disclose port operation capabilities (Truong: [0047]).
To that accord, Blanc does teach the hardware processor executing code instructions to determine that the new peripheral device has power requirements that can be met by a power delivery capability for the available port and can be operatively coupled with the available port using the communication protocol through reference to an orchestrated device descriptor (ODD) for the new peripheral device stored in a database at the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator. (Blanc: [0028] – “may determine that the mobile device requires at least a minimum current supply to charge (for example 200 mA or 500 mA) based on the serial number of the mobile device 10 and determines whether the USB port 23n to which the mobile device 10 is currently connected meets this requirement. Different methods may be used to determine a connection requirement for the mobile device 10 based on the identification information. For example, if the identification information includes a serial number, the in-vehicle device may retrieve a connection requirement from an element, for example a table, a database or any other organised form of data store”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Eichler and Truong disclosing the system for recommending peripheral devices for available slots with port operation capabilities to use with the host device with the determining that the power requirements can be met based on reference to a device description as taught by Blanc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify the ports with the characteristics to support a device to the user (Blanc: [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PTO-892 Reference U
Hatambeiki (US 20220394348 A1) discloses a system for using contextual information to provide recommendations to users, such as performing a compatibility check to ensure a sufficient number of suitable connections and input/output ports are available to integrate a proposed appliance to the system.
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: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, 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 1/21/2026