DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 12/08/2025 for application number 18/625,284.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewan et al. (US 2017/0180386 A1) in view of Kanigicherla et al. (US 2016/0267239 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dewan teaches an Information Handling System (IHS) (system of Figure 1 and 2), comprising:
a plurality of sensors (Figure 2, sensors 200);
an Embedded Controller (EC) (Figure 2, operating system 100 and host-OS TEE 120); and
a memory coupled to, or integrated into, the EC, wherein the memory comprises program instructions that, upon execution by the EC (“Various approaches to implement the TEE 120 may be used … create the TEE as a … sequestered memory” Par 0019) [TEE 120 is integrated in OS 100], cause the EC to:
receive a sensor configuration request (“the external data service communicates configuration data for the sensor… receive the configuration data, via the API, from the host-based TEE; ” par 0077);
identify a first of the plurality of sensors of the IHS for configuration based on the sensor configuration request (“the external data host application 122 collects configuration data from external data providers…and communicates the configuration data, via the unified APIs 214, through the microcontroller-based TEE 210, which in turn communicates the configuration data to one or more of the sensors 200 via the sensor hub 202.” Par 0034 and “the external data service communicates configuration data for the sensor from the external data service to the software application via the secure connection; wherein the microcontroller is further to perform operations that … communicate the configuration data to the sensor hub, the sensor hub to implement the configuration data for the sensor.” Par 0077 and paragraph 0113);
identify an interface for accessing the first sensor (“The microcontroller-based TEE may then transmit the secure sensor data to a secure agent (e.g., a software application of the TEE or another TEE) using a secure channel, API, or other data communication interface (operation 460).” Par 0053 and Figure 4), wherein the interface for accessing the first sensor comprises an interface operated by a sensor hub of the IHS (“The sensor hub 202 includes a direct hardware interface to the microcontroller-based TEE 210.” Par 0024 and Figure 2), and wherein the sensor hub is implemented by an SoC (System-on-Chip) of the IHS (“In an example of a System-on-Chip (SoC) configuration, the protected hardware channel 208 may be established as a special channel between the two entities that cannot be sniffed by any other party in the SoC or system architecture.” Par 0044);
wherein the SoC receives the modifications transmitted by the EC and relays the modifications to the first sensor without interfacing with the plurality of hardware registers of the first sensor (“communicate the configuration data to the sensor hub, the sensor hub to implement the configuration data for the sensor.” Par 0077 and “the sensor hub 202 directly implements the commands and updates received from the microcontroller-based TEE 210 without needing to authenticate the originating trusted agent” par 0029 and “the sensor hub and any associated sensors and sensor controllers may remain security agnostic, and in some examples, such sensors and sensor controllers do not need to incorporate heavy duty cryptographic firmware or security logic.” Par 0017 and “this configuration ensures that secure sensor data with certain properties is accessible to only the right party and trusted agent, delegating the role of gatekeeper at the microcontroller-based TEE 210 rather than at the sensor hub 202 or sensors 200.” Par 0037) [the microcontroller transmits the configuration data/ commands to the sensor hub that directly implements the configuration data, thereby not interfacing with internal registers (firmware/ security logic)].
However, Dewan does not explicitly teach identify a plurality of hardware registers for configuring the first sensor; via the identified interface, modify the plurality of hardware registers of the first sensor based on the sensor configuration request,
In the analogous art, Kanigicherla teaches identify a plurality of hardware registers for configuring the first sensor (“ the Host CPU 101, after reading the configuration details, goes on to read internal configuration registers, at block 608.” Par 0080 and Figure 6 and “the Initialization Module 204 performs sensor register programming based on the sensor characteristics.” Par 0055 and Figure 2) [host CPU accesses internal hardware registers to determine specific requirements necessary for sensor’s configuration];
via the identified interface, modify the plurality of hardware registers of the first sensor based on the sensor configuration request (“ISIU may receive the working policy generated by the main processing unit for the new sensors and may then configure the interfacing units communicating with the sensors based on the working policy. As a result of configuring, the interfacing unit of the ISIU may populate configuration register associated with the sensors for the purpose of collecting data from the sensors and processing the collected data on the basis of the working policy.” Par 0027 and “The Initialization Module 204 is used to trigger the process of initialization of the detected sensors. As a part of the process of initialization the Initialization Module 204 performs sensor register programming based on the sensor characteristics.” Par 0055 and paragraph 62 and Figure 4) [the ISIU communicates through identified interfaces and modifies/programs that sensor’s registers based on received working policy (configuration request)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dewan and Kanigicherla before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dewan to incorporate the teachings of Kanigicherla to provide specific hardware-level mechanism for the sensor hub to program the sensors based on working policies to reduce power consumption and system latency.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1. Dewan further teaches wherein the first sensor comprises at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) (“As shown in FIG. 3, a number of sensors are connected to the sensor hub 202, including a cellular communications chipset 314, a Wi-Fi communications chipset 316, a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) communications chipset 312, a gyroscope sensor 318, and an accelerometer sensor 320.” Par 0041 and Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1. Dewan further teaches wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer (Figure 3, accelerometer 320). Kanigicherla further teaches and wherein the sensor configuration request comprises a request to modify a sensitivity setting for use by the accelerometer in detecting shock events experienced by the IHS (“The sensor information comprises of activities or tasks related to the sensor. Activities or tasks may possibly be gesture pattern detection, location detection,” par 0073 and “ the registers enable the Host CPU 101 to modify any configuration or settings related functionalities of the ISIU 102, like data sensing, filtering, etc.” par 0045) [the host CPU modifies hardware registers for filtering and sensing settings to adjust the accelerometer’s sensitivity for detecting physical activities].
Claim 18 is anticipated by claims 1, 2 and 3 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 4, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1, Dewan further teaches wherein the sensor configuration request is received from an operating system application running on the IHS (“the external data service communicates configuration data for the sensor… receive the configuration data, via the API, from the host-based TEE; ” par 0077 and Figure 2, Host-OS TEE 120).
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1. Kanigicherla further teaches wherein the interface for accessing the first sensor comprises a sideband management pathway between the first sensor and the EC (“The PIs 216 directly interface the ISIU 102 to the sensors 103.” Par 0043 and “As a part of the process of initialization the Initialization Module 204 performs sensor register programming based on the sensor characteristics.” Par 0055) [the PIs correspond to the sideband management pathway].
Claims 14 and 19 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1. Dewan further teaches wherein the modifications are requested by a service OS operating on the SoC (“the host-based TEE is executed within an operating system,” par 0074 and “receive the configuration data, via the API, from the host-based TEE; and communicate the configuration data to the sensor hub, the sensor hub to implement the configuration data for the sensor.” Par 0077) [sensor configuration modifications are requested by trusted applications in a host-based execution environment managed by the OS in the SoC].
Regarding claim 11, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1, Dewan teaches wherein operations of the first sensor are updated according to the sensor configuration request without modifications to firmware used to operate the IHS (“the sensor hub 202 directly implements the commands and updates received from the microcontroller-based TEE 210” par 0029 and “such sensors and sensor controllers do not need to incorporate heavy duty cryptographic firmware or security logic.” Par 0017 and “the external data host application 122 … communicates the configuration data, via the unified APIs 214, through the microcontroller-based TEE 210, which in turn communicates the configuration data to one or more of the sensors 200 via the sensor hub 202.” Par 0034) [the sensors are modified without modifying the firmware].
Regarding claim 20, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the storage device of claim 18, Dewan further teaches wherein the interface for accessing the first sensor comprises an interface operated by a sensor hub of the IHS (“The sensor hub 202 includes a direct hardware interface to the microcontroller-based TEE 210.” Par 0024 and Figure 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewan et al. (US 2017/0180386 A1) in view of Kanigicherla et al. (US 2016/0267239 A1) and in further view of Iyer et al. (US 2022/0413938 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dewan and Kanigicherla teach the IHS of claim 1. However, Dewan and Kanigicherla do not explicitly teach wherein operations of the first sensor are updated according to the sensor configuration request without reinitializing hardware or software of the IHS.
In the analogous art, Iyer teaches wherein operations of the first sensor are updated according to the sensor configuration request without reinitializing hardware or software of the IHS (“If there is a runtime modification of the policy during a user's session, the application may need to be reset. To address these, and other issues, systems and methods described herein provide…commands that allow an arbitration object to manage the loading of runtime objects and thereby perform system policy updates.” Par 0120 and “the plurality of runtime objects may include at least one of: operating temperature objects, battery metrics objects, IHS performance objects, IHS posture objects, audio capture objects, video capture objects, IHS location objects, or user proximity objects.” Par 0006) [the platform framework manages runtime objects for sensor functions (i.e. video, audio, proximity) to perform dynamic updates without resetting/reinitializing applications during active session].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dewan, Kanigicherla and Iyer before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dewan and Kanigicherla to incorporate the teachings of Iyer to update operations of a sensor without reinitializing hardware or software of the IHS to reduce system latency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 , filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dewan and Kanigicherla. Examiner points to the updated mapping of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Joshi (US 2019/0243660 A1) teaches an IHS with an EC that manages two OS-specific chips to provide pre-boot services, enabling diagnostics and recovery from a common motherboard design without fully booting an operating system.
Rahardjo (US 2020/0134183 A1) teaches a remote access controller in an IHS securely recovering corrupted FPGA firmware by generating a security key and replacing inconsistent firmware with a verified master version via a sideband management bus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYMAN FATIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0830. The examiner can normally be reached M to Fri between 8am and 4pm EST.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on (571)270-1640. 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.
/AYMAN FATIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2176
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176