DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in which the Examiner has cited newly presented prior art, Ludwig et al. (US Patent No. 9,213,611 B2 hereinafter “Ludwig”), as necessitated by the amended independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the built-in component of the main computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device” in lines 10-11. The limitation is indefinite because the built-in component is a peripheral device not belonging to the second computing device, the built-in component is a peripheral device belonging to the main computing device. This is stated in paragraph [0008] of the specification where the built-in component is a peripheral device of the main computing device used by the docked second computing device.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the built-in component of the main computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device” in lines 15-17. The limitation is indefinite because the built-in component is a peripheral device not belonging to the second computing device, the built-in component is a peripheral device belonging to the main computing device. This is stated in paragraph [0008] of the specification where the built-in component is a peripheral device of the main computing device used by the docked second computing device.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the main computing device" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the built-in component of the all-in-one computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device” in lines 11-13. The limitation is indefinite because the built-in component is a peripheral device not belonging to the second computing device, the built-in component is a peripheral device belonging to the all-in-one computing device. This is stated in paragraph [0008] of the specification where the built-in component is a peripheral device of the all-in-one computing device used by the docked second computing device.
Claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11-20 are rejected based on their dependencies of claims 1, 6 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
8. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0070670 A1 hereinafter “Engelen” – IDS Submission) in view of Haren (US Pub. No. 2011/0080342 A1 hereinafter “Haren”), and further in view of Ludwig et al. (US Patent No. 9,213,611 B2 hereinafter “Ludwig”).
Referring to claim 1, Engelen discloses a method in a dock management controller of a main computing device (Engelen – Par. [0102, 0107]), the method comprising:
receiving a docking status of the main computing device (Engelen – Par. [0018, 0020] disclose when the dockee is actually docked to the WDH, data transfer to the peripherals of the host is controlled in accordance with the privacy level just assigned to the peripheral.); and
when the docking status indicates that the main computing device is engaged by a second computing device, exposing the designated storage region for access by the second computing device (Engelen – Par. [0024, 0025, 0037, 0061] disclose the virtual peripheral device is a virtual shared memory, and the dockee processor is arranged for, when docking, mapping the at least one virtual shared memory on an actual shared memory provided via the host device as the at least one actual peripheral, and, when docked, controlling data transfer with the actual shared memory according to the periphery privacy level.).
Engelen fails to explicitly disclose storing, in a designated storage region controlled by the dock management controller, a driver for a built-in component of the main computing device, wherein the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the main computing device; when the docking status indicates that the main computing device is engaged by a second computing device, exposing the designated storage region for access by the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver to utilize the built-in component of the main computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device.
Haren discloses storing, in a designated storage region controlled by the dock management controller, a driver for a built-in component of the main computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station that is controlled by controller 26 in a set up mode. Par. [0022] discloses the driver executed on a computer analyzing and acting on peripheral signals from a mouse and keyboard connected to the docking station via peripheral ports 36.); when the docking status indicates that the main computing device is engaged by a second computing device, exposing the designated storage region for access by the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver to utilize the built-in component of the main computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose Upon coupling, the computer and configuration engine 44 communicates negotiation signals to confirm the communication capabilities of the computer. Using the negotiation data, configuration engine 44 determines whether or not the newly coupled computer has access to program instructions, such as a driver, that enables the computer to utilize docking station 12. Upon a positive determination, configuration engine 44 places docking station in an operational mode with respect to that computer. Upon a negative determination, configuration engine 44 places docking station 12 in a set up mode with respect to that computer. In set-up mode, docking station 12 may appear as a mass storage device providing the computer access to memory 42. The program instructions contained in memory 42 may include an "auto-run" program that causes the computer to automatically install program instructions for utilizing docking station 12. As noted, those program instructions may include a device driver and a file sharing application. Par. [0022] discloses the driver executed on a computer analyzing and acting on peripheral signals from a mouse and keyboard connected to the docking station via peripheral ports 36.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Haren’s teachings with Engelen’s teachings for allowing a user to share devices such as monitors, a mouse, a keyboard, and other various peripherals between the two computers (Haren – Par. [0008]).
Engelen and Haren fail to explicitly disclose wherein the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the main computing device.
Ludwig discloses the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the main computing device (Ludwig – Col. 1, line 56 to col. 2, line 12 disclose data drives 106 are configured to store user data and are distinct from the boot drives 104.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Ludwig’s teachings with Engelen and Haren’s teachings for the benefit of implementing an extent based file system capable of providing fault tolerance (Ludwig – Col. 5, lines 1-2).
Referring to claim 3, Engelen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising automatically installing the driver at the second computing device when the driver is not yet installed at the second computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0016] disclose the program instructions contained in memory 42 may include an "auto-run" program that causes the computer to automatically install program instructions for utilizing docking station 12. As noted, those program instructions may include a device driver and a file sharing application.).
Referring to claim 4, Engelen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the designated storage region is exposed to the second computing device as a mass storage device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0016] disclose in set-up mode, docking station 12 may appear as a mass storage device providing the computer access to memory 42.).
Referring to claim 16, Engelen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the driver is preloaded during manufacture of the main computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station.).
9. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen in view of Haren and Ludwig, and further in view of Moore et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0078142 A1 hereinafter “Moore”).
Referring to claim 2, Engelen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the method of claim 1, however, fail to explicitly disclose further comprising providing a prompt to install the driver at the second computing device when the driver is not yet installed at the second computing device.
Moore discloses providing a prompt to install the driver at the second computing device when the driver is not yet installed at the second computing device (Moore – Par. [0036] discloses a user may be prompted to install a hardware driver to another device from the online server 180.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Moore’s teachings with Engelen, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of updating software modules such as device drivers and software components on a computer system. (Moore – Par. [0001]).
10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen in view of Haren and Ludwig, and further in view of Hunt et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0026326 A1 hereinafter “Hunt”).
Referring to claim 5, Engelen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the method of claim 1, however, fail to explicitly disclose further comprising, when the docking status is unengaged, exposing the designated storage region to the main computing device.
Hunt discloses when the docking status is unengaged, exposing the designated storage region to the main computing device (Hunt – Par. [0022] discloses if, however, no portable computer 52 is present at the docking station 60 during initialization of the docking station, then the docking station's CPU 62 determines (block 108) whether any pre-programmed activities exist to be performed. This functionality can be performed by the CPU 62 examining the storage 64 for pre-programmed activities 67. If any pre-programmed activities 67 exist, the CPU 62 performs, or causes to be performed, the activities (block 110) at the scheduled time(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Hunt’s teachings with Engelen, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of implementing the docking station to perform useful work apart from the portable electronics device (Hunt – Par. [0013]).
11. Claims 6, 7, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0287321 A1 hereinafter “Yen” – IDS Submission) in view of Haren (US Pub. No. 2011/0080342 A1 hereinafter “Haren”), and further in view of Ludwig et al. (US Patent No. 9,213,611 B2 hereinafter “Ludwig”).
Referring to claim 6, Yen discloses a dock management subsystem of a main computing device, the dock management subsystem comprising:
a non-volatile storage medium to store a driver for a component of the main computing device, the driver stored in a designated storage region of the non-volatile storage medium (Yen – Par. [0011] discloses flash drive 21 serves as computer-readable storage media and has encoded thereon computer-readable and executable code including driver code 40, which in turn includes security code 41.);
a dock management controller interconnected with the non-volatile storage medium (Yen – Fig. 1 (upper portion) shows USB hub 31 interconnected with USB flash drive 21.), the dock management controller (Yen – Fig. 1 (upper portion) shows USB hub 31.) to:
determine a docking status of the main computing device (Yen – Fig. 3 & Par. [0017] disclose at method segment M12, a computer can be connected to the dock; for example, laptop 11 can be connected to dock 10 via docking port 30. This allows the computer to recognize the dock media; for example, when laptop 11 is connected to dock 10 (while dock 10 is unlocked), flash drive 21 is mounted on laptop 11.); and
when the docking status indicates that the main computing device is engaged by a second computing device (Yen – Fig. 3 & Par. [0017] disclose at method segment M12, a computer can be connected to the dock; for example, laptop 11 can be connected to dock 10 via docking port 30. This allows the computer to recognize the dock media; for example, when laptop 11 is connected to dock 10 (while dock 10 is unlocked), flash drive 21 is mounted on laptop 11.):
enumerate the dock management controller and the component of the main computing device to the second computing device; and expose the designated storage region to the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver to utilize the component of the main computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device (Yen – Fig. 3 & Par. [0018, 0020, 0021] disclose method segment M13 involves installing a driver onto the docked computer. This involves the computer's operating system interacting with driver code 40 so that driver 20 is installed. Security code 41 is copied to driver 20 at this point as well. This installation is possible because laptop 11 is connected to flash drive 21 via USB port 49, docking port 30, and internal dock USB hub 31.).
Yen fails to explicitly disclose a driver for a built-in component of the main computing device; wherein the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the main computing device; and expose the designated storage region to the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver to utilize the built-in component of the main computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device.
Haren discloses a driver for a built-in component of the main computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station that is controlled by controller 26 in a set up mode. Par. [0022] discloses the driver executed on a computer analyzing and acting on peripheral signals from a mouse and keyboard connected to the docking station via peripheral ports 36.); and expose the designated storage region to the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver to utilize the built-in component of the main computing device as a peripheral device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose Upon coupling, the computer and configuration engine 44 communicates negotiation signals to confirm the communication capabilities of the computer. Using the negotiation data, configuration engine 44 determines whether or not the newly coupled computer has access to program instructions, such as a driver, that enables the computer to utilize docking station 12. Upon a positive determination, configuration engine 44 places docking station in an operational mode with respect to that computer. Upon a negative determination, configuration engine 44 places docking station 12 in a set up mode with respect to that computer. In set-up mode, docking station 12 may appear as a mass storage device providing the computer access to memory 42. The program instructions contained in memory 42 may include an "auto-run" program that causes the computer to automatically install program instructions for utilizing docking station 12. As noted, those program instructions may include a device driver and a file sharing application. Par. [0022] discloses the driver executed on a computer analyzing and acting on peripheral signals from a mouse and keyboard connected to the docking station via peripheral ports 36.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Haren’s teachings with Yen’s teachings for allowing a user to share devices such as monitors, a mouse, a keyboard, and other various peripherals between the two computers (Haren – Par. [0008]).
Yen and Haren fail to explicitly disclose wherein the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the main computing device.
Ludwig discloses the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the main computing device (Ludwig – Col. 1, line 56 to col. 2, line 12 disclose data drives 106 are configured to store user data and are distinct from the boot drives 104.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Ludwig’s teachings with Yen and Haren’s teachings for the benefit of implementing an extent based file system capable of providing fault tolerance (Ludwig – Col. 5, lines 1-2).
Referring to claim 7, Yen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the dock management subsystem of claim 6, wherein the designated storage region comprises a whole of the non-volatile storage medium (Yen – Par. [0011] discloses flash drive 21 serves as computer-readable storage media and has encoded thereon computer-readable and executable code including driver code 40, which in turn includes security code 41.).
Referring to claim 17, Yen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the dock management subsystem of claim 6, wherein the built-in component of the main computing device includes at least one of a display or a speaker (Haren – Fig. 2 & Par. [0013] disclose monitor ports 32 and 34 each represent a physical wired or wireless port though which controller 26 can drive the display of a connected monitor.).
Referring to claim 19, Yen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the dock management subsystem of claim 6, wherein the driver is preloaded during manufacture of the main computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station.).
12. Claims 8, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen in view of Haren and Ludwig, and further in view of Hunt.
Referring to claim 8, Yen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the dock management subsystem of claim 6, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the designated storage region comprises a partitioned region of the non-volatile storage medium.
Hunt discloses the designated storage region comprises a partitioned region of the non-volatile storage medium (Hunt – Fig. 2 & par. [0016] disclose various partitions (APPs 65, O/S 66, Pre-programmed activities 67) of the non-volatile storage medium 64.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Hunt’s teachings with Yen, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of implementing the docking station to perform useful work apart from the portable electronics device (Hunt – Par. [0013]).
Referring to claim 9, Yen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the dock management subsystem of claim 6, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the designated storage region is designated as read-only to restrict removal of the driver.
Hunt discloses the designated storage region is designated as read-only (Hunt – Fig. 2 & par. [0016] disclose the storage 64 could be a read only form of storage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Hunt’s teachings with Yen, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of implementing the docking station to perform useful work apart from the portable electronics device (Hunt – Par. [0013]).
Referring to claim 18, Yen, Haren and Ludwig disclose the dock management subsystem of claim 6, however, fail to explicitly disclose the docket management controller to, when the docking status indicates the main computing device is unengaged, expose the designated storage region to the main computing device.
Hunt discloses the docket management controller to, when the docking status indicates the main computing device is unengaged, expose the designated storage region to the main computing device (Hunt – Par. [0022] discloses if, however, no portable computer 52 is present at the docking station 60 during initialization of the docking station, then the docking station's CPU 62 determines (block 108) whether any pre-programmed activities exist to be performed. This functionality can be performed by the CPU 62 examining the storage 64 for pre-programmed activities 67. If any pre-programmed activities 67 exist, the CPU 62 performs, or causes to be performed, the activities (block 110) at the scheduled time(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Hunt’s teachings with Yen, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of implementing the docking station to perform useful work apart from the portable electronics device (Hunt – Par. [0013]).
13. Claim 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Patent No. 6,584,533 B1 hereinafter “Cho”) in view of Haren, and further in view of Ludwig.
Referring to claim 10, Cho discloses an all-in-one computing device capable of acting as a dock for a second computing device (Cho – See Abstract & Fig. 2, main computer 50), the all-in-one computing device (Cho – See Abstract & Fig. 2, main computer 50) comprising:
a main processor to operate the all-in-one computing device (Cho – Fig. 2, a microprocessor 52 to operate the main computer 50.);
a component operable as part of the all-in-one computing device and capable of being enumerated to the second computing device (Cho – Fig. 2 & col. 6, lines 29-34 disclose through the docking of the computers 30 and 50, resources such as the HDD 56g, the I/O or peripheral devices 56a, the memory (DMA) 54, and the ports of the high performance main computer 50 can be utilized by the portable computer 30 when executing its own program(s).);
a non-volatile storage medium (Cho – Fig. 2, ROM 51 or HDD 56g); and
a dock management controller (Cho – Fig. 2 & col. 4, lines 18-21, docking controller 55 detects a docking state between the portable computer 30 and the main computer 50 and reboots the system.), thereby to utilize the built-in component of the all-in-one computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device (Cho – Fig. 2 & col. 6, lines 29-34 disclose through the docking of the computers 30 and 50, resources such as the HDD 56g, the I/O or peripheral devices 56a, the memory (DMA) 54, and the ports of the high performance main computer 50 can be utilized by the portable computer 30 when executing its own program(s).).
Cho fails to explicitly disclose a built-in component; the non-volatile storage medium storing a driver for the component in a designated storage region, wherein the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the all-in-one computing device; and the dock management controller to expose the designated storage region to the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver when the second computing device is docked to the all-in-one computing device, thereby to utilize the built-in component of the all-in-one computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device.
Haren discloses a built-in component (Haren – Fig. 2, peripheral ports 36); a storage medium storing a driver for the built-in component in a designated storage region (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station that is controlled by controller 26 in a set up mode. Par. [0022] discloses the driver executed on a computer analyzing and acting on peripheral signals from a mouse and keyboard connected to the docking station via peripheral ports 36.); and
a dock management controller to expose the designated storage region to the second computing device to allow the second computing device to access the driver when the second computing device is docked to the computing device, thereby to utilize the built-in component of the all-in-one computing device as a peripheral device of the second computing device (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose Upon coupling, the computer and configuration engine 44 communicates negotiation signals to confirm the communication capabilities of the computer. Using the negotiation data, configuration engine 44 determines whether or not the newly coupled computer has access to program instructions, such as a driver, that enables the computer to utilize docking station 12. Upon a positive determination, configuration engine 44 places docking station in an operational mode with respect to that computer. Upon a negative determination, configuration engine 44 places docking station 12 in a set up mode with respect to that computer. In set-up mode, docking station 12 may appear as a mass storage device providing the computer access to memory 42. The program instructions contained in memory 42 may include an "auto-run" program that causes the computer to automatically install program instructions for utilizing docking station 12. As noted, those program instructions may include a device driver and a file sharing application. Par. [0022] discloses the driver executed on a computer analyzing and acting on peripheral signals from a mouse and keyboard connected to the docking station via peripheral ports 36.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Haren’s teachings with Cho’s teachings for allowing a user to share devices such as monitors, a mouse, a keyboard, and other various peripherals between the two computers (Haren – Par. [0008]).
Cho and Haren fail to explicitly disclose wherein the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the all-in-one computing device.
Ludwig discloses the designated storage region is distinct from a drive of the main computing device pertaining to a functioning of the all-in-one computing device (Ludwig – Col. 1, line 56 to col. 2, line 12 disclose data drives 106 are configured to store user data and are distinct from the boot drives 104.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Ludwig’s teachings with Cho and Haren’s teachings for the benefit of implementing an extent based file system capable of providing fault tolerance (Ludwig – Col. 5, lines 1-2).
Referring to claim 11, Cho, Haren and Ludwig disclose the all-in-one computing device of claim 10, wherein the driver is preloaded to the designated storage region (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station.).
Referring to claim 12, Cho, Haren and Ludwig disclose the all-in-one computing device of claim 11, wherein the designated storage region is designated as read-only to restrict removal (Cho – Fig. 2, ROM 51) of the driver (Haren – Figs. 2-3 & Par. [0015-0016] disclose program instructions that includes a device driver stored in memory 42 of the docking station.).
14. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Haren and Ludwig, and further in view of Bak (US Pub. No. 2021/0064386 A1 hereinafter “Bak”).
Referring to claim 13, Cho, Haren and Ludwig disclose all-in-one computing device of claim 10, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the designated storage region is partitioned from a boot drive of the all-in-one computing device.
Bak discloses the designated storage region is partitioned from a boot drive of the computing device (Bak – Par. [0053] discloses the storage partition 420 may be a region in which general data other than the OS is stored and may be used as a removable storage by being exposed to a user when the boot disk 10 is connected to a computing device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Bak’s teachings with Cho, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of a booting disk supporting operating system (OS) booting by Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) firmware and Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) firmware and supporting a file storage function that allows the booting disk to be recognized as a storage medium and to store a file thereon when the booting disk is connected to a computer of a Windows operating system (Bak – Par. [0006]).
15. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Haren and Ludwig, and further in view of Hunt.
Referring to claim 14, Cho, Haren and Ludwig disclose the all-in-one computing device of claim 10, and the dock management controller (Cho – Fig. 2 & col. 4, lines 18-21, docking controller 55.), however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dock management controller is to expose the designated storage region to the main processor to allow access to the designated storage region as a mass storage device.
Hunt discloses to expose the designated storage region to the main processor to allow access to the designated storage region as a mass storage device (Hunt – Par. [0022] discloses if, however, no portable computer 52 is present at the docking station 60 during initialization of the docking station, then the docking station's CPU 62 determines (block 108) whether any pre-programmed activities exist to be performed. This functionality can be performed by the CPU 62 examining the storage 64 for pre-programmed activities 67. If any pre-programmed activities 67 exist, the CPU 62 performs, or causes to be performed, the activities (block 110) at the scheduled time(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Hunt’s teachings with Cho, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of implementing the docking station to perform useful work apart from the portable electronics device (Hunt – Par. [0013]).
16. Claim 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Haren and Ludwig, and further in view of Hamlin et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0410049 A1 hereinafter “Hamlin”).
Referring to claim 15, Cho, Haren and Ludwig disclose the all-in-one computing device of claim 10, however, fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a scalar connected to an input device, the scalar to receive a docking status as input from the input device and transmit the docking status to the dock management controller.
Hamlin discloses a scalar connected to an input device, the scalar to receive a docking status as input from the input device and transmit the docking status to the dock management controller (Hamlin – Par. [0044] discloses upon user interaction with an input device 148 (e.g., user pressing of a power button, pressing one or more keys on a keyboard attached to docking station 142, moving a mouse attached to docking station 142), wireless docking station 142 may communicate a response beacon datagram to information handling system 102. Such datagram may include timestamp 306 from datagram 300 received by docking station 142, so that management controller 110 may validate connectivity to wireless docking station 142. In other words, management controller 110 may also employ policy to selectively restrict or allow communication from wireless docking station 142.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Hamlin’s teachings with Cho, Haren and Ludwig’s teachings for benefit of overcoming the disadvantages and problems associated with secure discovery and wake of an information handling system interfacing with a wireless docking station may be reduced or eliminated (Hamlin – Par. [0006]).
Referring to claim 20, Cho, Haren, Ludwig and Hamlin disclose all-in-one computing device of claim 15, wherein the input device is at least one of a switch or an on-screen-display menu (Haren – Fig. 2 & Par. [0021] disclose a manual switch 40.) controlled by the scaler to toggle between an engaged docking status or an unengaged docking status (Hamlin – Par. [0044] discloses upon user interaction with an input device 148 (e.g., user pressing of a power button, pressing one or more keys on a keyboard attached to docking station 142, moving a mouse attached to docking station 142), wireless docking station 142 may communicate a response beacon datagram to information handling system 102. Such datagram may include timestamp 306 from datagram 300 received by docking station 142, so that management controller 110 may validate connectivity to wireless docking station 142. In other words, management controller 110 may also employ policy to selectively restrict or allow communication from wireless docking station 142.).
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Ill(c).
In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAYTON LEWIS-TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571) 270-7754. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8AM TO 4PM, EASTERN TIME.
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, Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached on (571) 270-1023. 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.
/DAYTON LEWIS-TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2181