Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method for managing operation of an endpoint device, the method comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
identifying a difference between a configured state and an actual state (abstract idea mental process);
identifying, based on the difference and a power policy, at least one action (abstract idea mental process);
identifying, for a first action of the at least one action, a scheduling limitation based on an operational window for the endpoint device (abstract idea mental process);
performing, using the scheduling limitation, a scheduling process for the first action to obtain a schedule (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited 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:
updating operation of the endpoint device (generic computing components) using the schedule and the at least one action to obtain an updated endpoint device (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
providing computer implemented services using the updated endpoint device (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
updating operation of the endpoint device using the schedule and the at least one action to obtain an updated endpoint device (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
providing computer implemented services using the updated endpoint device (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the scheduling limitation comprises: a required power state of the endpoint device (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the operational window is declaratively defined (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the power policy specifies a power state of the endpoint device as a function of declaratively defined operational windows of the endpoint device (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the at least one action, when performed, is expected to reduce the difference (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the difference is based on a declaratively defined operation for the endpoint device, the declaratively define operation being keyed, at least in part, to the operational window (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to identifying the difference:
obtaining, by a sideband component of the endpoint device and from an orchestrator having authority to manage the endpoint device, an update impacting a previous configured state of the endpoint device (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
making, by the sideband component, a determination regarding whether the update requires a state analysis by the endpoint device (abstract idea mental process); and
in an instance of the determination where the update requires the state analysis:
waking up the endpoint device from a low power state in which the endpoint device is unable to identify the difference (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the difference is due to the update, the update changing the previously configured state to the configured state, and the actual state matching the previously configured state when the difference is identified (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 9. The method of claim 7, wherein the sideband component comprises a management controller hosted by the endpoint device, and the endpoint device comprises hardware resources distinct from and managed by the management controller (generic computing components).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 10, it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a signal directly or indirectly by claiming a medium and the Specification recites evidence where the computer readable medium can be broadly but reasonably interpreted as a signal or wave (see Specification [00182] “A non-transitory machine-readable medium includes any mechanism for storing information…”) (emphasis added by the examiner). In other words, it appears that Applicant is redefining an already well-defined term “non-transitory” to actually include transitory embodiments. A transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter (see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03). As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category (see Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03). The BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se (see In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). In that event, the claim is directed to a form of energy which does not fall into a category of invention. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to include “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium excludes transitory embodiments”.
As per claims 11-18, they are dependent on claim 10 but do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 deficiencies of claim 10. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, in ll. 2, it is unclear as to what the configured state and actual state refer. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets that the configured state and actual state are of the endpoint device. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims not specifically mentioned above are also rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the respective above rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 11,395,225) (hereinafter Wong) in view of Beattie Jr. et al. (US 2017/0347360) (hereinafter Beattie).
As per claim 1, Wong primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method for managing operation of an endpoint device, the method comprising:
identifying, for a first action of the at least one action, a scheduling limitation based on an operational window for the endpoint device (col. 41, ll. 55 to col. 42, ll. 36 adjust the RX window time based on battery power of endpoint device according to a schedule);
performing, using the scheduling limitation, a scheduling process for the first action to obtain a schedule (col. 43, ll. 27-47 perform scheduled RX mode cycles with a RX window time interval and dwell period before exceeding a maximum retry threshold expiration condition at the end of a listening period);
updating operation of the endpoint device using the schedule and the at least one action to obtain an updated endpoint device (col. 13, ll. 56 to col. 14, ll. 7 endpoint device can receive software updates during periodic listening mode and col. 15, ll. 45-50 software/firmware update for endpoint device); and
providing computer implemented services using the updated endpoint device (col. 20, ll. 43-54 network services for endpoint devices).
Wong does not explicitly teach:
identifying a difference between a configured state and an actual state;
identifying, based on the difference and a power policy, at least one action.
However, Beattie teaches:
identifying a difference between a configured state and an actual state ([0015] power states of a mobile endpoint device may further include a high charge state and a low charge state, e.g., the low charge state comprising a state in which a mobile endpoint device battery has less charge as compared to the high charge state and [0018] mobile endpoint devices in a high charge state may also be prioritized as compared to mobile endpoint devices in a low charge state for re-assignment to a different access point and the mobile endpoint devices in the high charge state may be less likely to use up the remaining available battery charge if transferred to secondary access points as compared to mobile endpoint devices in the low charge state that may already have a small amount of remaining available charge);
identifying, based on the difference and a power policy, at least one action ([0015] and [0017]-[0018] select at least one mobile endpoint device to offload from the primary access point to a secondary access point based on the power state of the endpoint device while prioritizing endpoint device candidates for offloading based on the power states).
Beattie and Wong are both concerned with endpoint devices and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Beattie because it would provide for a selection of a type of modulation that may be primarily for the benefit of the mobile endpoint device, e.g., to conserve battery charge when the mobile endpoint device is in the battery operated state. However, a selection of a type of modulation may also be driven by the power state of the access point that is in communication with the mobile endpoint device. For instance, an access point may be in a backup power state or in a reduced power state and may desire to reduce the overall power utilization of the access point. To achieve this goal, the access point may utilize a less power intensive type of modulation to communicate with at least one selected mobile endpoint device. The mobile endpoint device may be in a battery operated state, for example. While the mobile endpoint device may communicate with the access point at a reduced data rate, this diminishment in service may be offset by the benefit of reduced battery consumption at the mobile endpoint device(s).
As per claim 2, Wong further teaches wherein the scheduling limitation comprises:
a required power state of the endpoint device (col. 5, ll. 46-51 requirement for frequent battery recharging and col. 14, ll. 7-14 desired battery power longevity).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Beattie in view of Liljeback et al. (US 2022/0050674) (hereinafter Liljeback).
As per claim 3, Wong in view of Beattie do not explicitly teach wherein the operational window is declaratively defined.
However, Liljeback teaches wherein the operational window is declaratively defined ([0028] declarative deployment file may include maintenance windows, software compatibility definitions, system identifiers, and other information for deploying system updates. The deployment manager may identify a deployment schedule for implementing the system updates in accordance with the declarative deployment file. Identifying the deployment schedule may include determining which logical single-tenant system stacks to update and at which times to deploy the system updates based on the maintenance windows defined in the declarative deployment files and [0058] declarative deployment file may specify constraints and deployment parameters that can be used to determine a deployment schedule and implement updates for various systems in accordance with the declarative deployment file. The declarative deployment file may define windows for deploying a system update).
Liljeback and Wong are both concerned with endpoint devices and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Beattie in view of Liljeback because it would provide a way to improve computing, memory and processing efficiency when deploying system updates to large numbers of service instances. For example, the resulting system may prevent system updates from being deployed to a tenant during peak operating hours for the tenant, which may reduce service interruptions at the tenant. Additionally, this may enable the operator to prevent updates from being deployed to service instances with unsupported active versions, which may reduce errors and processing inefficiencies.
As per claim 4, Wong further teaches wherein the power policy specifies a power state of the endpoint device as a function of declaratively defined operational windows of the endpoint device (col. 12, ll. 61 to col. 13, ll. 4 the duration of time between each repetition of the scheduled receive mode operations may be defined by a “receive window time interval.” A receive window time interval may define the duration of time during which an endpoint device is in a low-power state within a given repetition. The receive window time interval may define the duration of time in between each repetition e.g., the period of the scheduled receive mode loop, such that the receive window time interval encompasses both the duration of the low-power state and the dwell period and col. 42, ll. 57 to col. 43, ll. 10 receive window time interval may refer to a duration of time when the endpoint device can transition among different power states).
As per claim 5, Wong further teaches wherein the at least one action, when performed, is expected to reduce the difference (col. 46, ll. 60-64 endpoint devices can transition power states to reduce their power consumption).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Beattie in view of Liljeback in view of Natarajan et al. (US 2019/0041947) (hereinafter Natarajan).
As per claim 6, Wong in view of Beattie in view of Liljeback do not explicitly teach wherein the difference is based on a declaratively defined operation for the endpoint device, the declaratively define operation being keyed, at least in part, to the operational window.
However, Natarajan teaches wherein the difference is based on a declaratively defined operation for the endpoint device, the declaratively define operation being keyed, at least in part, to the operational window ([0025] analyze the activation signal and determine which activated endpoint device is to perform the workload associated with the activation signal. Once the workload determiner determines which activated endpoint device is to perform the workload, the power state manager may operate other activated endpoint devices that do not have pending workload to return to the low power state prior to a completion of the workload by the determined endpoint device to reduce a total power consumption. To do so, the power state manager may dynamically adjust an idle time for the other endpoint devices to aggressively e.g., faster than would otherwise occur re-enter the low power state. The idle time is a predefined time period that elapses before an endpoint device that is in the high power state re-enters the low power state).
Natarajan and Wong are both concerned with endpoint devices and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Beattie in view of Liljeback in view of Natarajan because it would provide a way to aggressively re-enter the endpoint devices that do not have work to the low power state so that the compute device achieves a reduction in total power consumption.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Lambert et al. (US 2020/0341929) disclose a wake signal, wake status, sideband communication, and endpoint devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights