Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/642,379

SYSTEM-INTEGRATED SOLUTION FOR IO DEVICE EXTENDED CONTROL WITHOUT OPERATING SYSTEM DRIVER INVOLVEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Examiner
UNELUS, ERNEST
Art Unit
2181
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
417 granted / 540 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
569
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§102
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§112
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 540 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT Claim rejections based on prior art 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of newly interpretation of the cited reference. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART 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 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. 1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn et al. (US pub. # 2021/0397577), hereinafter, “Kahn”, in view of Chinnici et al. (US pub. # 2012/0105874), hereinafter, “Chinnici”. 2. As per claims 1, 11 and 19, Kahn discloses a method, the method comprising: receiving an out-of-band request indicating (note, how this ‘indication’ is expressed is not recited in the claim language; close to an infinite number of things can be indicated) a user input from a human interface device (management host 240 of fig. 2) (see claim 10 and paragraph 0010 of Kahn, which discloses “in an embodiment, the out-of-band data is received from a management host and the out-of-band data is transmitted to the storage device via an I2C/SMBus”); receiving an in-band request indicating the user input from the human interface device (see claim 4 and paragraph 0008 of Kahn, which discloses “In some embodiments, the management processor includes an Ethernet bunch of flash (EBOF) processor and the management device includes at least one of a baseboard management controller (BMC), a field-programmable array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a processor. In other embodiments, the system further includes a switch, and the management processor routes the in-band data from the management device to a second storage device of the storage devices via the switch. In various embodiments, the switch receives second in-band data from a host and the switch transmits the second in-band data to the storage device. In other embodiments, the host includes a non-volatile memory express over fabric (NVMe-oF) initiator and the storage device includes an NVMe-oF target”); and sending a signal (out-of-band information 203 from port 218 to port 228, as discloses in fig.2 and paragraph 0050) directly to a peripheral device [SSD 210; see paragraph 0035, which discloses “storage devices such as network attached storage devices (e.g., Ethernet solid-state drives, SSDs) may reside on separate networks or separate portions of a network (e.g., separate Ethernet networks)”] [see fig. 2, paragraph 0035 and particular paragraph 0050, which discloses “further, the disclosed systems can be configured to transport first out-of-band information 203 through respective I2C/SMBus ports 218 and 228 of the BMC 204 and the Ethernet SSD 210, respectively. In particular, such out-of-band information 203 can be transmitted from the MCTP binding layer of the stack 212 of the BMC 204 to the MCTP binding 234 layer of the Ethernet SSD 210. Moreover the BMC 204 may be configured to be connected to a management host 240. This management host 240 can transmit various management related information through the BMC 204 to the Ethernet SSD 210 via respective ports (for example, the I2C/SMBus ports 218 and 228)”], via a micro-control unit (BMC 204 of fig. 2), in response to receiving the out-of-band request (see paragraphs 0010 and 0050). Kahn fails to expressly discloses the peripheral device including at least one selected from the group consisting of a video sensor, an audio sensor, a display, a printer, and a projector. Chinnici discloses the peripheral device including at least one selected from the group consisting of a video sensor (video sensor 39, as discloses in paragraph 0031), an audio sensor (audio sensor 74, as discloses in paragraph 0038), a display (local display 66, as discloses in paragraph 0033), a printer (printer 29, as discloses in paragraph 0068), and a projector (light-transmissive area 126, as discloses in paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chinnici’s teaching of a computer system for controlling a plurality of different peripherals, into Kahn’s teaching of a method including: receiving, via a first port, in-band data from a management device; generating routing information for routing the in-band data to at least one storage device in a chassis; applying the routing information to a header of a packet of data associated with the in-band data; and transmitting, via a second port, the in-band data to the storage device based on the routing information, for the ability/benefit of having a peripheral device such as a scanner for scanning an image-enhanceable product to form an image that is analyzed to produce printing maps or printing information. 3. As per claims 2 and 12, the combination of Kahn and Chinnici discloses “The method of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], wherein the out-of-band request is received via an inter-integrated circuit (see paragraph 0035 and fig. 2). 4. As per claims 3 and 13, Kahn discloses wherein sending the signal via the micro-control unit bypasses a central processing unit (see fig. 2). 5. As per claim 4, Kahn discloses, further comprising: prior to sending the signal via the micro-control unit, determining whether an in-band communication path is functioning properly (see paragraph 0034). 6. As per claims 5 and 15, Chinnici discloses wherein the peripheral device is one or more cameras (digital camera 77) or one or more microphones (see paragraph 0030). 7. As per claims 6 and 16, Kahn discloses, further comprising: reading a state of the peripheral device; comparing the out-of-band request to the read state of the peripheral device; and determining to honor the out-of-band request based on the comparison (see paragraph 0036). 8. As per claims 7 and 17, Kahn discloses wherein the out-of-band request comprises a request to turn off the camera or microphone, and wherein the read state of the camera or microphone corresponds to the camera or microphone being on (see paragraph 0083). 9. As per claims 8 and 18, Kahn discloses wherein the sending a signal to honor the out-of-band request comprises causing a state of the peripheral device to be altered (see paragraph 0083). 10. As per claim 9, Kahn discloses, further comprising causing an indication of the altered state of the peripheral device to be displayed via an output device altered (see paragraph 0083). 11. As per claim 10, Kahn discloses wherein the output device is different than the human interface device and the peripheral device (see fig. 2 and paragraph 0083). 12. As per claim 14, Kahn discloses wherein bypassing the central processing unit avoids using operating system drivers (see fig. 2 and paragraph 0041). 13. As per claim 20, Kahn discloses wherein the out-of-band request is received via an inter-integrated circuit, wherein sending the signal via the micro-control unit bypasses a central processing unit, and wherein prior to sending the signal via the micro-control unit, the set of operations further comprises determining whether an in-band communication path is functioning properly (see paragraph 0034). CLOSING COMMENTS CONCLUSION a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i): a (1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have received a first action on the merits and are subject of a first action non-final. b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ernest Unelus whose telephone number is (571) 272- 8596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. IMPORTANT NOTE If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Mr. Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached at the following telephone number: Area Code (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 PMR system, see her//pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 91 97 (toll-free). /Ernest Unelus/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2181
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2024
Application Filed
May 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585420
AUDIO SWITCH WITH TURN-OFF HELPER FOR DIGITAL INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585605
COARSE GRAINED RECONFIGURABLE ARCHITECTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573798
DYNAMIC LANE REALLOCATION BASED ON BANDWIDTH NEEDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572484
HDMI display control
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561074
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE ACCESS TO A DISTRIBUTED VIRTUAL FIRMWARE NETWORK DRIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 540 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month