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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 03/12/2026 have been entered.
3. Claims 1–40 are pending for examination in the request for continued examination filed on 03/12/2026.
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.
4. Claims 1–3, 12–23 and 32–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. As to independent claim 1, the claim recites:
“[identifying or determining for purposes of display] at least a portion of the monitoring information or the status information corresponding to a selected subset of the fleet of edge devices, wherein the selected subset is determined based on one or more user selection inputs to the remote fleet management GU.”
As to independent claim 21, it recites similar language of commensurate scope as claim 1.
These limitations, as currently drafted and within their respective claim, represent processes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the use of a “computer processor” to perform these steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) – Examples of Concepts The Courts Have Identified As Abstract Ideas, discussing abstract ideas or concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work).
For example, but for the use of generic computers,
the performance of these steps in the context of the claims reasonably encompasses the user mentally and/or manually performing the steps of mentally
1) determining monitoring information or the status information corresponding to a
selected subset of the fleet of edge devices to be displayed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (under Prong Two of Step 2A)
(I) Generic Computing Device
For instance, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a remote fleet management graphical user interface (GUI)” and “a cloud computing environment associated with the remote fleet management GUI;” and
claim 22 recited the additional elements of “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions” that perform these steps.
The “graphical user interface” “cloud computing environment” and of “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions” are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computing devices performing one or more generic computer functions such as processing and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(II) Data Collection
As shown, claim 1 also includes the additional element of:
(a) “receiving monitoring information from each respective physically containerized edge data center unit of a plurality of physically containerized edge data center units, wherein the monitoring information includes information associated with one or more machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (Al) workloads implemented by the respective physically containerized edge data center unit, wherein each respective containerized edge data center includes a hardware specification associated with a respective edge site where the respective containerized edge data center is deployed;”
(b) “receiving respective status information corresponding to a plurality of connected edge assets, wherein each connected edge asset is associated with one or more physically containerized edge data center units of the plurality of physically containerized edge data center units, and wherein the plurality of physically containerized edge data center units and the plurality of connected edge assets are included in a fleet of edge devices,” and
(c) “receiving, using the remote fleet management GUI, one or more user configuration inputs indicative of an updated configuration for at least one workload of at least one physically containerized edge data center unit of the selected subset of the fleet of edge devices, the at least one workload corresponding to a pre-trained ML or Al model deployed on the at least one physically containerized edge data center unit”
However, merely obtaining or collecting data for processing simply does not “integrate” the abstract idea into a practical application which improves the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field.
Moreover, the courts have also held that limitations which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed below and set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g), the mere collection and storage of information for processing essentially amounts to data gathering and storing and therefore is consider an “insignificant extra-solution activity.”
(III) Data Output
Additionally, claim 1 also includes the additional element of:
(d) “displaying, using a remote fleet management graphical user interface (GUI), at least a portion of the monitoring information or the status information corresponding to a selected subset of the fleet of edge devices,” and
(e) “transmitting, from a cloud computing environment associated with the remote fleet management GUI, control information corresponding to the updated configuration, wherein the control information is transmitted to the at least one physically containerized edge data center unit of the selected subset.”
However, merely presenting or outputting the information from one computing device to another simply does not “integrate” the abstract idea into a practical application which improves the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field, absent a further step or activity that executes or performs tasks or controls, and thereby effecting a change or improvement to the functioning of the computer or the computing device.
Moreover, the courts have also held that limitations which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed below and set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g), the mere outputting of information (for display or further manipulation) is considered an “insignificant extra-solution activity.”
Accordingly, the additional elements of the claims, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, added nothing to the implementation of a mental process on an unspecified, “generic” computer and therefore failed to transform the abstract idea nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.
(IV) Particular Technological Environment or Field Of Use
As shown above, the claims also include the elements of:
(1) “monitoring information from each respective physically containerized edge data center unit of a plurality of physically containerized edge data center units, wherein the monitoring information includes information associated with one or more machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (Al) workloads implemented by the respective physically containerized edge data center unit, wherein each respective containerized edge data center includes a hardware specification associated with a respective edge site where the respective containerized edge data center is deployed”
(2) “respective status information corresponding to a plurality of connected edge assets, wherein each connected edge asset is associated with one or more physically containerized edge data center units of the plurality of physically containerized edge data center units, and wherein the plurality of physically containerized edge data center units and the plurality of connected edge assets are included in a fleet of edge devices,”
(3) “one or more user configuration inputs indicative of an updated configuration for at least one workload of at least one physically containerized edge data center unit of the selected subset of the fleet of edge devices, the at least one workload corresponding to a pre-trained ML or Al model deployed on the at least one physically containerized edge data center unit,” and
(4) “control information corresponding to the updated configuration.”
These exemplary elements however merely describes the general technical or computing environment (a plurality of physically containerized edge data center units executing at least one workload, and a plurality of connected edge assets) and restrict the processed information or data to a particular type or category (without imposing any functional claim limitations, activities, or steps).
Limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, neither meaningfully limit the claim nor transform (the abstract idea nature of) the claim to a particular useful application to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Under Step 2B of the 101 analysis:
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 and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As claimed, the “remote fleet management graphical user interface (GUI),” “cloud computing environment,” and “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions” merely encompass generic computing components (e.g. generic computer/networking components and computer programs) recited at a high-level of generality, executing one or more steps of the claims.
Moreover, the activity of “mere data gathering” have also been found by the courts to be “insignificant extra-solution activity” as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, describing that in determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, one may factoring into consideration whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
As recited, the step of”
(a) “receiving monitoring information from each respective physically containerized edge data center unit of a plurality of containerized edge data center units,”
(b) “receiving respective status information corresponding to a plurality of connected edge assets,” and
(c) “receiving, using the remote fleet management GUI, one or more user configuration inputs indicative of an updated configuration for at least one workload of at least one containerized edge data center unit”
are mere data gathering activities for additional processing (to determine and transmit control information corresponding to a selected updated configuration for at least one workload).
Moreover, the activity of “outputting information” have also been found by the courts to be “insignificant extra-solution activity” as set forth in 2106.05(g)(3) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, describing that in determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, one may factoring into consideration whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
As recited, the step of:
(d) “displaying, using a remote fleet management graphical user interface (GUI), at least a portion of the monitoring information or the status information corresponding to a selected subset of the fleet of edge devices,” and
(e) “transmitting, from a cloud computing environment associated with the remote fleet management GUI, control information corresponding to the updated configuration, wherein the control information is transmitted to the at least one physically containerized edge data center unit of the selected subset” are merely outputting the information from one computing device to another.
Additionally, the computing activity of a) receiving or transmitting data over a network, and b) storing and retrieving information in memory (for distribution and dissemination, as an example), set forth in 2106.05(d)(II), setting forth that courts have recognized 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.
As recited, the step of (e) “transmitting, from a cloud computing environment associated with the remote fleet management GUI, control information corresponding to the updated configuration” merely involving the sending, distribution, and dissemination of information across computing devices.
Accordingly, the additional step(s) or element(s) of the claims, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, added nothing to the implementation of a mental process on an unspecified, “generic” computer and therefore failed to transform the abstract idea nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, the additional step(s) or element(s) of the claims, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, added nothing to the implementation of a mental process on an unspecified, “generic” computer and therefore failed to transform the abstract idea nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.
6. As to dependent claims 2–3, 12–20, 22–23 and 32–40, each of these claims either (1) recites additional step(s) that covers performance in the mind; or (2) merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use; (3) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception such as data input, display and storage; or (4) recites a function which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and is no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer; and thus as a whole is also directed and confined to the same process set forth in claims 1 and 21. Therefore, these claims do not individually or collectively add an inventive concept or additional element(s) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, dependent claim 2, reciting “wherein the one or more user configuration inputs are indicative of an updated configuration for a respective ML or Al workload of the one or more ML or Al workloads,” merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use, using generic computer/networking components and computer programs.
Dependent claim 3, reciting “wherein the updated configuration for the respective ML or Al workload corresponds to a pre-trained ML or Al model associated with the respective ML or Al workload,” also merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use, using generic computer/networking components and computer programs.
Finally, each of the dependent claims 12–20, describing “the one or more user configuration inputs,” “the updated network connectivity configuration,” and “the one or more internet backhaul links,” also simply restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use, using generic computer/networking components and computer programs.
As to dependent claims 22–23 and 32–40, they are the corresponding system and computer program product claims correspond to at least one of claims 2–3 and 12–20,. Therefore, these claims do not individually or collectively 1) integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they 2) include additional element(s) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 4–11 and 24–31 includes element(s) integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the newly applied teachings or references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have also been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have not overcome the §101 rejections. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks, the Applicant contends the following:
(a) The rejected claims requires:
- A fleet of physically deployed edge data center units at geographic edge sites;
- Each unit includes site-specific hardware specifications;
- ML/AI workloads are executed locally at those physical units; and
- A cloud computing environment transmits control information to reconfigure the workload execution on those physical units,
and thus, cannot be performed mentally (page 14 of Remarks).
(b) The amended claim explicitly recites “physically containerized edge data center units” and represents a “concrete improvement to distributed edge computing systems” (page 15 of Remarks).
(c) The claim requires:
- Fleet-level management of physically deployed edge data center units;
- Selection of a subset of edge devices via a remote fleet management GUI;
- Updating configuration of a workload corresponding to a pre-trained ML or AI model deployed at the edge;
- Transmitting control information from a cloud computing environment to modify
the edge unit.
and thus represents a practical application of computing technology.
The Examiner disagrees.
As to (a), the Examiner notes that the focus of 101 abstract idea framework is not whether the claimed invention recites the use of a processor or other computer components used in carrying out a claimed process (and thus covers activities or steps which are/would not be performed mentally), but rather whether the claimed process represent processes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer components, i.e. notwithstanding the recitation and use of a computer.
Similar to the arguments advanced in the previous reply, Applicant again emphasizes that the claims includes
- A fleet of physically deployed edge data center units at geographic edge sites;
- Each unit includes site-specific hardware specifications;
- ML/AI workloads are executed locally at those physical units; and
- A cloud computing environment transmits control information to reconfigure the workload execution on those physical units.
These exemplary elements however merely describes the general technical or computing environment (a plurality of physically deployed edge data center units at geographic edge sites executing at least one workload, and a plurality of connected edge assets, AND that these physically containerized edge data center units each includes a hardware specification of the “edge site” where each of these edge data center units is located) and restrict the processed information or data to a particular type or category (without imposing any functional claim limitations, activities, or steps).
As presented, NONE of the claimed steps of rejected claims 1–3, 12–23, and 32–40 calls for and requires the use of PHYSICALLY CONTAINERIZED EDGE DATA CENTER UNIT to perform the claimed process of “receiving,” “displaying,” and “transmitting” information. Instead, only “a remote fleet management graphical user interface (GUI),”a cloud computing environment associated with the remote fleet management GUI,” and “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions” are included to perform these steps.
And as explained above, the recited “graphical user interface” “cloud computing environment” and of “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions” are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computing devices performing one or more generic computer functions such as processing and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
As to (b), Applicant also notes a list of concrete improvements to the “functioning” of edge computing systems such as “A distributed fleet of physically deployed edge data center modules,
with site-specific hardware characteristics, and hosting pre-trained ML/ AI models.”
However, these exemplary elements however merely describes the general technical or computing environment and restrict the processed information or data to a particular type or category, without imposing any functional claim limitations, activities, or steps, NOR requires the use of these elements to perform the claimed process of “receiving,” “displaying,” and “transmitting” information. As claimed, only “a remote fleet management graphical user interface (GUI)” “a cloud computing environment associated with the remote fleet management GUI” and “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions” are includes to perform these steps.
That is the steps of “receiving,” “displaying,” and “transmitting” information are perform using only generic computers, cloud/networking components and computer programs.
The incorporation of generic computer or networking components to perform one or more steps or activities which can be reasonably performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work simply cannot be viewed as an unconventional technological solution or a “solution” to a technical problem or a practical application of computing technology because this is no more than automating or executing these activities using generic computer components. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims those reciting mental processes performed on a computer.
As to (c), Applicant argues that claim 1 integrates a practical application of computing technology by pointing to several features of the “distributed edge ML infrastructure” such as
(1) updating configuration of a workload,
(2) controlling distributed hardware infrastructure,
(3) improving manageability of edge ML deployments, and
(4) enabling coordinated reconfiguration of workloads across geographically distributed edge data centers.
The Examiner notes that while the claimed elements, as an ordered combination, may uniquely and intrinsically support the implementation of these features, NONE of these features or steps (e.g. updating a configuration, controlling the hardware, managing deployed assets by performing or executing a “coordinated” reconfiguration) are recited or incorporated into the rejected claims in a manner which actually RESULTS IN AN IMPROVEMENT (i.e. a practical “application”) to the functioning of any edge device, physically containerized edge data center unit, or the plurality of connected edge assets.
As claimed, the claimed invention is merely directed to the receiving of monitoring and status information of physically containerized edge data center units and connected edge assets, displaying the received information, receiving user input of (selecting) an updated configuration for at least one workload, and transmission of control information corresponding to the updated configuration to one or more monitored physically containerized edge data center units, which do not RESULTS IN AN IMPROVEMENT (i.e. a practical “application”) to the configuration or functioning of any edge device, physically containerized edge data center unit, or the plurality of connected edge assets, absent an additional step or activity of applying or using the control information or updated configuration to/by the physically containerized edge data center units.
Finally, in contrast with rejected claims 1–3 and 12–23 and 32–40, and referring to the remaining dependent claims, the Examiner notes claims 4–11 and 23–31 are identified as including element(s) integrating the abstract idea into a practical application under 101.
For example, claim 4 recites “cause the at least one physically containerized edge data center unit of the selected subset TO PERFORM LOCAL RETRAINING OF THE PRE-TRAINED ML OR AI MODEL …” which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application as this step directly yields or results in an improvement to the claimed technical or computing environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Li et al., US 2021/0241167 A1, teaching training, deploying, executing, and updating machine learning models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN C WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M..
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, Aimee J. Li can be reached on (571)272-4169. 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.
/BENJAMIN C WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights