DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 and 20 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 11-19 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “a scheduler configured to schedule threads on the first cores and the second cores based on the first affinity information,” “the scheduler is further configured to determine that the first thread is to be scheduled on the second cores based on the first affinity information,” “to override the scheduling of the first thread on the second cores based on the first indication,” and “to schedule the first thread on the first cores based on the first indication,” as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, evaluating hardware provided information and scheduler-facing instructions/hints (affinity information and indications), making a determination on thread allocation based off that information, and selecting a scheduling destination can all be practically done in the human mind by observing, thinking, and making judgement.
Claim 11: The limitations of “providing, on the information handling system, a scheduler configured to schedule threads on the first cores and the second cores based on the first affinity information,” “determining, by the scheduler, that first thread is to be scheduled on the second cores based on the first affinity information,” “overriding, by the scheduler, the scheduling of the first thread…,” and “scheduling, by the scheduler, the first thread on the first cores based on the first indication,” as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, evaluating hardware provided information and scheduler-facing instructions/hints (affinity information and indications), making a determination on allocation based off that information, and selecting a scheduling destination can all be practically done in the human mind by observing, thinking, and making judgement.
Claim 20: The limitations of “a scheduler configured to schedule threads on the performance cores and the efficiency cores based on the affinity information,” “the scheduler is further configured to determine that the thread is to be scheduled on the efficiency cores based on the affinity information, to override the scheduling of the thread…,” and “to schedule the thread on the performance cores based on the indication,” as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, evaluating hardware provided information and scheduler-facing instructions/hints (affinity information and indications), making a determination on allocation based off that information, and selecting a scheduling destination can all be practically done in the human mind by observing, thinking, and making judgement.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 11: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a processor” and “a scheduler” are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. They also recite “first cores and second cores” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) without imposing meaningful limitation and does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, the following additional elements – “the processor configured to provide first affinity information associated with the first cores and the second cores”, “the information handling system is configured to provide a first indication to the scheduler to schedule a first thread on the first cores” (Claim 1), and “providing a first indication to the scheduler to schedule a first thread on the first cores” (Claim 11) are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activity is further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Claim 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a processor” and “a scheduler” are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. They also recite “a plurality of performance cores” and “a plurality of efficiency cores” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) without imposing meaningful limitation which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, the following additional elements – “the processor configured to provide first affinity information associated with the first cores and the second cores” and “the information handling system is configured to provide a first indication to the scheduler to schedule a first thread on the first cores” are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activity is further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claims 1, 11, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea, field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, with regard to the insignificant extra-solution data gathering and transmission activity, it is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional as evidenced in at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data” wherein transmitting data is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional, therefore, the instant providing of information, too, is WURC.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to the dependent claims, they do not introduce any subject matter that would correct the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. On page 7, applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is moot because the claims cannot be practiced by the human mind due to the inclusion of steps such as the processor providing affinity information.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would point out that in the rejection, the “providing…” limitation was not included in the judicial exception elements. Instead, it was shown to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The fact that a claim includes insignificant extra-solution activity does not mean that it cannot also be directed toward a judicial exception. Thus, the rejection stands.
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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights