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 .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/433,285 filed on 02/05/2024.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. IDS filed on 08/21/2024 is considered.
5. The drawings filed on 02/05/2024 are noted.
Specification
6. Specification is objected to because of the following informality. Specification page 1 recites “cross-reference to related applications” which is incomplete.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality. Applicant is advised to define the acronym “PCIe” recites in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. Claim limitation “unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholders “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 11, and all dependent claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in a software that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification provides no descriptive definitions or details that separate the claimed “unit” described in the claim from functioning as a software.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding software, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 11, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations of: “booting a console compute card installed in a host system”.
The limitation of booting a console compute card installed in a host system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using “a host system to initiate boot-up of the host system causes powering of the console compute card being connected via a PCIe connection to the host system, wherein the console compute card includes an accelerated processing unit (APU) and an endpoint management bridge (EMB), wherein powering of the console compute card powers the endpoint management bridge via the PCIe connection; wherein the EMB exposes a plurality of PCIe endpoints, including one or more local endpoints, and one or more host-facing endpoints”. The host system recites at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer processing a console compute card installed in a host system) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the boot-up of the host system includes enumerating the host-facing endpoints by the host system through a PCIe fabric of the host system; where the EMB delays enumeration of the local endpoints until the enumeration of the host-facing endpoints is completed; after completion of the enumeration of the host-facing endpoints by the host system, then enumerating the local endpoints by the APU of the console compute card through a PCIe fabric of the console compute card”, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715