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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 01/02/2026 filing with the Office.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims provide a particularized system to improve operation of an anchor information handling system with centralized monitoring of peripheral device nodes and other nodes, such as smart devices nodes, operatively coupled to the anchor information handling system node to automatically identify a defined peripheral device workspace. Remarks p. 10.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The specification provides “the information handling system 100 described herein may be referred to as an anchor information handling system . . . information handling system itself as described herein that is used by an internet technology decision maker (ITDM) to create hardware device operational policies with one or more peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator servers 158 to be propagated down to node devices within a peripheral device workspace such as the information handling system” (Spec. [17]).
The Specification also discloses “the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator server 158 may request upcoming user meeting data from, for example, the anchor information handling system node 100 that executes a calendaring program such as Microsoft ® Outlook ®, Google ® Calendar, Apple ® Calendar, and the like. In an embodiment, the peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator server 158 may request event data from the anchor information handling system node 100 which may also, in turn, get this event data from each of the device nodes within the peripheral device workspace. In an embodiment, upcoming user meeting data may include data describing upcoming videoconferencing sessions, upcoming business meetings, and other meeting events that the peripheral device workspace is used to engage in the meeting. In an embodiment, event data may include data describing increased use of a device node, execution of processing-intensive applications on the anchor information handling system node 100, smart device nodes, and other peripheral devices within the peripheral device workspace, and/or increases in temperatures of hardware devices of each of the peripheral devices within the peripheral device workspace.” (Spec. [42]).
The claimed invention is to analyzing known data (received data) to define peripheral device workspace and determine the how the definition affects the QoE values for upcoming events from the anchor system. The claimed invention then forecast a determination whether the future power requirements and processing capabilities of the peripheral device are within the defined peripheral device workspace. Finally, the claimed invention sends notification based on the future power requirements and processing capabilities during the upcoming meeting. A centralized point in the anchoring system, which is a form of making integral the component of the system, is not found to be an improvement per se. Further is noted that claimed invention does not monitor as Applicant argues the peripheral device nodes and other nodes, such as smart devices nodes. The Office finds that the claims are directed to forecast power requirements and processing capabilities for a future event or meeting. The forecasting can be done in the mind of a person; therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. Based on the October 2019 Update: SME, “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,”. Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor, memory, and power management unit) are performing generic computer functions such as collecting and analyzing data, and utilizing a computer notification means. The generic computer components are merely automating the limitations, also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
For these reason the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Thus, Applicant submits that automatic enrollment and telemetry gathering from operatively coupled peripheral device nodes and other nodes, including the anchor information handling system node, by the particularized peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator server into an automatically defined peripheral device workspace collection is, by itself, a particularized machine with a useful purpose for automatically improving the function of the information handling system. Remarks p. 10-11.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. It is noted that Applicant appears to make In re Alappat argument; however a programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)"); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). Lastly, eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claimed invention has utility, because "[u]tility is not the test for patent-eligible subject matter." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1380, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.
For these reason the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Applicant submits that the particularized machine of the claimed peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator server, as amended, is claimed with elements that operate as significantly more than an abstract idea and sufficiently recite a practical application. Remarks p. 11.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The claimed invention does not provide limitation that are found to be significantly more than the identified abstract idea when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. For these reason the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are to device (machine) and claims 9-15 are to a method (process).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental processes. Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A peripheral device workspace cloud orchestrator server, comprising:
a hardware processor;
a memory device;
a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device;
a network interface device to receive quality of experience (QoE) values, user identification data, and node device enrollment data associated with a plurality of peripheral device nodes operatively coupled to an anchor information handling system node within a peripheral device workspace, wherein the QoE values include power capabilities and processing capabilities of each of the peripheral device nodes in the peripheral device workspace;
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code of a peripheral device workspace telemetry module to associate the QoE values and node device enrollment data on a cloud orchestrator database to automatically define a defined peripheral device workspace under a peripheral device workspace identification value for the peripheral device nodes operatively coupled to the anchor information handling system node; and
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code of a peripheral device workspace telemetry module to request and receive upcoming user meetings and events from calendar software at the anchor information handling system node that is associated with the user’s use of the plurality of peripheral device nodes in the defined peripheral device workspace that are affected by the QoE values;
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code of a peripheral device workspace telemetry module to project future power requirements and processing capabilities affecting the QoE for use of the peripheral device nodes during the upcoming meetings and events at the anchor information handling system node; and
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code of a peripheral device workspace telemetry module generate unified workspace notifications that indicate the QoE will be affected by projected future power requirements and processing capabilities at one or more of the plurality of peripheral device nodes within the defined peripheral device workspace during the upcoming meeting and events and sending those unified workspace notifications to the anchor information handling system node within the defined peripheral device workspace.
The claimed invention is to the prediction whether the quality of experience during for example an event such as an onsite workday will be effected based on known/received information about physical working area and devices of the worker, see Spec. [14]. Based on the know requirements of the peripheral devices for a given timeframe of an upcoming meeting and event a determination could be made about the future power requirements and how the requirements with effect the quality of experience. If the devices will cause an issue (generating) then notice is given to the human user. The Office finds the claimed limitations to fall within the abstract category of a mental process.
The Office finds the claim to be akin to predicting an overloaded power outlet. A human given known information such as the power load of a circuit, worker brings several peripheral devices e.g. a high power demand device such a space heater along with a laptop, printer, phone charger, and projector to the hoteling work environment a person using his mind’s ability to evaluate the situation would know all these devices operating at the same time would cause a circuit to trip thus effect the QoE for the worker and others. The person could formulate (generate) a notification using his mind ability to deduce and problem solve. The person could then transmit this information using a machine.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The requesting and receiving elements are determined to be steps of data gathering – insignificant extra solution activity. Similarly the notification elements are determined to be outputting steps also insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Finally, the claimed invention is found to be carried out via generic/general/off-the-shelf components, see Spec. [17].
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claims 2 and 4 further define the notifications (outputting) which add to the extra-solution activity elements of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 20 add a step of receiving information (data gathering), which adds to the extra-solution activity elements of the claimed invention. The received data includes operational relationship information – the courts have said data regardless of its content is abstract, see for example Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349.
Claim 5 further define the QoE given know information, which adds to the identified abstract idea of mental processes. Where the can mentally carry out the claimed steps.
Claims 6, 10, 14, and 17 is a step of “apply it” with respect to the cloud manageability orchestrator the limitations does not provide significantly more or a practical application to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 15 add a step of receiving/gathers information (data gathering), which adds to the extra-solution activity elements of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 13, and 19 limitations are directed to receiving information and analyzing that information which adds to the identified abstract idea of mental processes. Where the can mentally carry out the claimed steps.
Claim 12 and 18 defines alerts (outputting) which add to the extra-solution activity elements of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thiruchengode Vajravel et al (US 2025/0251943) teaches an information handling system node includes a hardware processor, a memory device, a power management unit with a peripheral device node operatively coupled to the information handling system node. The hardware processor may execute computer-readable program code of a custom event and device manageability service sub-agent to discover the peripheral device node operatively coupled to the information handling system node including a unique peripheral device identification (ID), request and receive, via a unified device application programming interface module, peripheral device capabilities.
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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights