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 .
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 1-4, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Szabo (Szabo et al., US2010/0042869A1) in view of Cates (Cates et al., US2004/0024853A1), and Wang (Hao-Hao Wang, US2013/0138979A1).
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 17, Szabo discloses:
a hardware memory device having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a Chassis Management Controller (CMC), cause the CMC to, and/or an information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a plurality of Power Supply Units (PSUs) (e.g., “network devices“ Szabo discloses network devices rather than PSUs); a memory coupled to the CMC, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution (e.g., “Blade Server(s)” – see Fig.1:110,118, “Blade Server Chassis”, “Controller”, “memory”, “Blade Server1 …N” – see Fig.2:200, 204-206; “Blade Server”, “Power”, “controller”, “Blade Server Bus Interface”, see Fig.3:302-312), cause the IHS to implement a method for performing steps: [in response to a PSU firmware update process, disallow communications to and from the CMC that do not relate to the PSU firmware update process] assembling/cluster/associate a first set of PSUs into a first logical group and a second set of PSUs into a second local group (e.g., “old virtual clusters”/”old active cluster”, and “new virtual clusters”/”new standby cluster”, see paragraph [0025], “upgrading a cluster by bifurcating the cluster into two virtual clusters, an ‘old’ virtual cluster (old active cluster) and a ‘new’ virtual cluster (new standby cluster)”), [wherein the first logical group includes an offline update-ready group, and the second logical group includes a power serving group]; updating a first PSU of the first logical group with a firmware image (e.g., paragraph [0025], “iteratively upgrading members of the old cluster…”, and Fig.6D and paragraph [0066], “FIG. 6D illustrates a Rolling Live Install. In one embodiment a user selects a particular software version or hotfix to install in a non-active boot partition. In other embodiments a newest available version is automatically installed onto non-active boot partitions”; Fig.); after the update, assigning the first PSU to the second logical group (e.g., paragraph [0025], “iteratively upgrading members of the old cluster while moving them into the new cluster. While members are added to the new cluster, existing connections and new connections are seamlessly processed by the old cluster” – adding to new cluster after updating; Also see Fig.8, step830-850 and paragraph [0086], “the selected first member is modified by upgrading to a new configuration. Additionally, or alternatively, the selected first member is upgraded to a new configuration automatically upon being added to the second cluster. In one embodiment, updating the configuration of the selected first member includes updating to a new software version”); assigning a second PSU of the second logical group to the first logical group (e.g., Fig.8-9, step 910 – Select cluster Member, step 920 – Remove connection from cluster member); and updating the second PSU with the firmware image (e.g., Fig.8, step 830 – Modify cluster member (updating); see paragraph [0086], “the selected first member is modified by upgrading to a new configuration”). Szabo discloses clustering/grouping and updating information handling system (HIS) (e.g., Fig.1) including updating network devices while maintaining availability (e.g., Fig.1-4, and paragraph [0040], “Network Device 400 may replace blade server 110 of FIG. 1 in a similar system. Further, any tasks or functionality performed by network device 400 may be performed by the blade server 110 (and vice versa). Network Device 400 could be a server, a traffic management device, application servers, or the like. One embodiment of the process performed by at least some components of network device 400 is described in more detail in conjunction with FIGS. 5-10.”).
Sazbo does not explicitly disclose in response to a PSU firmware update process, disallow communications to and from the CMC that do not relate to the PSU firmware update process, and wherein the first logical group includes an offline update-ready group, and the second logical group includes a power serving group. However, Cates discloses in response to a PSU firmware update process, disallow communications to and from the CMC that do not relate to the PSU firmware update process (e.g., Fig.4, steps 414-428, “Determine If LB can Stop New Conns”, “Request, Receive Off-Line Status”, “Can Stop?->Yes”, and “Bring Servers In Selected Group Offline”, and see paragraph [0044], “Shutdown manager 332 manages the orderly shutdown of servers 250 marked as in the current group”, also see paragraph [0065-66] “Continuing now at step 428, the servers in the selected group are brought off-line 428, each server in the selected group is sent a request to begin the update process”), and wherein the first logical group includes an offline update-ready group, and the second logical group includes a power serving group (e.g., Fig.4, step 416 – “Assign Servers to Groups, Select 1st GP” and step 428 – “Bring Servers in Selected Group Offline”, steps 448 – “More Groups?” and step 452 – “Select Next Group”; Also see paragraph [0045], “Because load balancer 210 stops forwarding new connections to the servers in the current group, load balancer 210 will direct new connections to servers in groups other than the current group”). Szabo modified by Cates discloses updating network devices or servers respectively, but does not explicitly disclose updating the Power Supply Units (PSUs). Wang explicitly discloses updating the Power Supply Units (e.g., Fig.2, item 230 – “Power Supple Unit”, and Fig.1 “Power supply” for each server 110_1…110_n), and further Wang further discloses updating the firmware of the power supply units (e.g. paragraph [0031], “If the IMM 250 finds that the current installation firmware of the power supply unit 230 is of an old version and the installation firmware stored in the IMM 250 is of a new version, the IMM 250 may update the old current installation firmware in the power supply unit 230 by using the new installation firmware.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Szabo and Wang. One would have been motived to do so to update firmware of the Power Supple Units (PSUs) from the old version new version and also maintain service availability as suggested by Szabo and Wang (e.g., Wang, paragraph [0031], “If the IMM 250 finds that the current installation firmware of the power supply unit 230 is of an old version and the installation firmware stored in the IMM 250 is of a new version, the IMM 250 may update the old current installation firmware in the power supply unit 230 by using the new installation firmware.”, And also maintain service availability as suggested by Szabo, paragraph [0002], “upgrading clustered network traffic management device members without substantially impacting availability for managing existing and new network traffic”).
With respect to claim 2, Szabo further discloses:
wherein the IHS is part of a chassis hosting a plurality of IHSs, and wherein the PSUs are coupled to the chassis (e.g., Szabo - “Blade Server Chassis” – Fig.2:200, hosting a plurality of servers: “Blade Server 1-N” – Fig.2:202, wherein the Power is coupled to the blade server bus interface of blade server 300 – Fig.3:302. Wang further discloses the rack including a plurality of servers (110_1...110_n) each is coupled to a server – Fig.1:110).
With respect to claim 3, Szabo discloses:
wherein the CMC includes a processor (e.g., Szabo, “Controllers” – Fig.2- 3:206, 312 to perform management operation, paragraph [0037-39], “Controller 312 is coupled to direct bus 304, which enables communication of data and addresses with hard drive emulator 308 and accelerator 306. Almost all of an application may be stored in hard drive emulator 308 for relatively quick access by logical actions performed with controller 312… controller 312 may be provided in any one of several types of devices, including, but not limited to, CPU…”. Wang discloses BMC (Board Management Controller), see paragraph [0019], “The servers 220 each have a baseboard management controller (BMC), and the BMCs each have a management network port. The BMC is a well-known technique of the server, and is not repeated here. The management network ports of the BMCs are respectively connected to one of multiple network connection ports of the first network switch 210. The first network switch 210 (that is, a management network switch) is coupled to a management network 20”).
With respect to claim 4, Szabo discloses:
wherein the chassis comprises a member chassis, and wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to receive the firmware image from a lead chassis (e.g., Szabo - “Blade Server Chassis” – Fig.2:200, hosting a plurality of servers: “Blade Server 1-N” – Fig.2:202,); Also see Fig.6B and paragraph [0064], “FIG. 6B illustrates a Traffic Manager User Interface (TMUI). In one embodiment, TMUI manages the image repository, which stores software programs and entire software images. Software images, either complete software programs or hotfixes, may be downloaded by the TMUI from a network repository.” – receive image from a network repository).
With respect to claim 7, Szabo discloses:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to, prior to the update of the first PSU, reduce a volume of communications to or from CMC (e.g., Fig.9, steps 910-912, – “Select Cluster Member…Remove Connections from Cluster Member”, and paragraph [0085], “bifurcation of the first cluster may include reallocating at least one connection from the selected first member to at least one other member in the first cluster. By reallocating this connection, the connection continues to be seamlessly handled while allowing the selected first member to be removed from the first cluster…Alternatively, the second cluster may be explicitly created, and then the selected first member may be removed from the first cluster and added to a second cluster. In one embodiment, reallocating a connection includes draining and/or bleeding off connections from the first member”).
With respect to claims 8, Szabo discloses:
wherein to reduce the communications, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to place at least one of: an execution service, a web service, [a database service, an inventory service, or a component update service in a halted state] (e.g., paragraph [0050], “Member manager 454 includes any component for performing cluster specific processing. For instance, when network device 400 comprises a Blade Server, member manager 454 may perform processing including, but not limited to, file sharing, Web page serving, caching, transcoding, streaming audio, streaming video, load balancing and failover management, and other network technologies typically implemented by a cluster architecture”).
With respect to claims 9, 15, and 19, Cates further discloses:
wherein to reduce the communications, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to re-schedule one or more scheduled tasks to a time after the update of the second PSU (e.g., paragraph [ [0008], “When the update is complete, the load balancer is directed to bring back on-line only the servers that were in service prior to the update and for which the installation completed properly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate Cates into Szabo, Cates, and Wang above. One would have been motived to do so to “update a set of servers in an automated fashion, without bringing down the entire set of servers” as suggested by Cates (e.g., paragraph [0007], “What is needed is a system and method that can update a set of servers in an automated fashion, without bringing down the entire set of servers”).
With respect to claim 10, Cates further discloses:
wherein to reduce the communications, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to wait for one or more running tasks to complete (e.g., Fig.4, step 422 – “Monitor servers for idle connections”, step 424 – “Are All Idle?”, step 426 – “Time Expired?” – wait for running tasks to complete - idle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate Cates into Szabo, Cates, and Wang as addressed above. One would have been motived to do so to “update a set of servers in an automated fashion, without bringing down the entire set of servers” as suggested by Cates (e.g., paragraph [0007], “What is needed is a system and method that can update a set of servers in an automated fashion, without bringing down the entire set of servers”).
With respect to claim 11, Szabo discloses:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to, prior to, or during the update of the first PSU, restore the volume of the communications to or from the CMC (e.g., paragraph [0099], In this way, network traffic that had been received and processed by the first cluster will be received and processed by the second cluster, again thereby seamlessly transferring control and processing to the second cluster while maintaining connectivity.”).
With respect to claim 14, Szabo discloses:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the CMC to, during the update of the first PSU, reduce communications between the CMC and the first and second sets of PSUs (e.g., during the update/while updating - bifurcating a cluster/connection, see Fig.10, and paragraph [0094], “FIG. 10 illustrates a logical flow diagram generally showing one embodiment of a process for bifurcating a cluster”, also see paragraph [0099], “failover may be triggered when a defined number of connections are mirrored above a defined threshold and/or amount of state information managed by the first active cluster is detected as being mirrored by the second active cluster. For instance, failover may be triggered when, for example, 75% of connection state data is shared between the first and second clusters”).
With respect to claim 18, Szabo discloses:
while updating the first and second PSUs, reducing communications between the CMC and the first and second sets of PSUs (e.g., while updating/during the update - bifurcating a cluster/connection, see Fig.10 ,and paragraph [0094], “FIG. 10 illustrates a logical flow diagram generally showing one embodiment of a process for bifurcating a cluster”, also see paragraph [0099], “failover may be triggered when a defined number of connections are mirrored above a defined threshold and/or amount of state information managed by the first active cluster is detected as being mirrored by the second active cluster. For instance, failover may be triggered when, for example, 75% of connection state data is shared between the first and second clusters”).
3. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szabo
in view of Cates and Wangas applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
Wang2 (Wang et al., US2019/0391626A1).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Szabo, Cates and Wang does not explicitly disclose following limitation, however, Wang2 discloses:
wherein to cluster the first and second sets of PSUs into the first and second logical groups, the program instructions, upon execution, further causes the IHS to identify a PSU redundancy configuration (e.g., paragraph [0004], “the quantity of the power supply units included in the redundant power supply device disposed with the server is determined according to the largest required power value of the server. For example, when the largest required power value of the server is the same as the total power supplied by N power supply units, the controller selects the redundant power supply device including N+1 power supply units to execute the power supplement for the server. In addition, the N power supply units supply power for the server evenly based on the currently required power of the server”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang2 into Szabo, Cates, and Wang. One would have been motived to do so to provide power to server in case of power supply unit has a breakdown as suggested by Wang2 (e.g., paragraph [003], “Each of the power supply units is able to supply the power independently to the server. In the case that one of the power supply units has a breakdown, other power supply units keep operating to supply power to the server; hence, the server is able to operate normally”).
With respect to claim 6, Szabo, Cates, and Wang, do not explicitly disclose following limitation, how Wang2 discloses:
wherein to cluster the first and second sets of PSUs into the first and second logical groups, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to identify one or more of: a power attribute of each of the PSUs, or a power budget or allocation of each of the PSUs (e.g., Fig.2, steps S13-15, “Determine the value of an operation quantity of the power supple units. ...Selectively controlling the redundant power supply device…”. Fig.4, step S102 – Determining whether the power supply units operate normally based on the current power consumption values”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang2 into Szabo, Cates, and Wang. One would have been motived to do so to meet the power supply demand as suggested by Wang2 (e.g., paragraph [0021], “controller 20 controls all of the power supply units 101a and 101b to supply power to the power demanding device 30 when one of the power supply units 101a and 101b operates abnormally”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szabo,
Cates, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gagliardi
(Marco Gagliardi, US2014/0059528A1).
With respect to claim 12, Szabo modified by Wang does not explicitly disclose following limitation, however, Gagliardi discloses:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to roll back the update of the first PSU to a previous firmware version in response to an update failure indication (e.g., Fig.1, step 116 – “determine issue with updated agent”, step 118 – “rollback agent to previous version…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gagliardi into Szabo, Cates, and Wang. One would have been motived to do so to continuously provide service without stopping the application as suggested by Gagliardi (e.g., paragraph [0033], “it is determined that there is an issue or a problem with the updated Agent. Therefore, in block 118, the Agent is rolled back to use a previous version of code for the Agent, while continuing to run the Application (i.e., without stopping the Application or restarting the Application), and while continuing to run the software environment (i.e., without stopping and/or restarting the software environment)”).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szabo, and Cates, and Wang as applied to claims 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Wang3 (Wang et al., US8,402,454B2)
With respect to claims 16 and 20, the combination of Szabo, cates, and Wang does not explicitly disclose, however Wang3 discloses: wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the CMC to, prior to the update of the first PSU, increase communications between the CMC and the first and second sets of PSUs (e.g., “line cards”, see col.2, lines 37-44, “prior to upgrading the line card software on the first set of the line cards, and until after the session data for the sessions serviced by the network element is available to the first set of the line cards. Advantageously, as a result, speed of traffic movement away from the first set of the line cards is increased by the directing of the traffic away from the first set of the line cards, prior to taking the first set of the line cards offline”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang3 into Szabo Cates, and Wang. One would have been motived to do so to increase the usage/communication/traffic prior to the update/offline as suggested by Wang3 (e.g., col.2, lines 41-44, “speed of traffic movement away from the first set of the line cards is increased by the directing of the traffic away from the first set of the line cards, prior to taking the first set of the line cards offline”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued in pages 6-8 for claim 1 that the cited reference(s) does not disclose the claimed limitation, particularly the limitation “in response to a PSU firmware update process, disallow communications to and from the CMC that do not relate to the PSU firmware update process” wherein CMC is not the thing that is updating firmware but the PSU that needs the firmware to be updated.
The examiner respectfully submitted that the references in combination does reasonable teach the above claimed limitations wherein Szabo et al. reference discloses the claimed framework of software/firmware update in the system of racks that has plurality of units and Szabo et al. also teaches the grouping of racks/blades/servers into different groups for updating process without disruption; Wang reference discloses the same environment which has many units/blades/servers in the rack for updating including performing the software/firmware update of multiple PSUs (e.g. paragraphs [0028-0031]); and finally the last reference by Cates et al. primarily discloses the detail of performing software/firmware update on the devices without disruption by creating multiple groups including group of offline for software/firmware update as illustrate visually in Figure 4 wherein it monitors the servers/devices (can be PSUs in view of Wang reference) to idle down before switching to the offline/inactive group for update. In particular, the alleged limitations above can be can be reasonably seen in the combination of all three references as whole rather than individual limitations, the concept of limiting/disallowing communications to and from the CMC that do not relate to the PSU firmware update processes can be reasonably interpreted as part of bringing/switching the devices (PSUs) from active to inactive/offline group so the software/firmware of the devices (PSUs) can be updated without disrupting/interfering with the live processes. Since the independent claim does not detail the structure of CMC, thus any component or structure can be considered as CMC including a controller of PSUs. With this interpretation, when the servers/devices (PSUs) are placed in offline/inactive group that controller of those servers/devices (PSUs) would obviously no longer enable the regular communications to outside as they are offline/inactive, but that controller still actively communicates the servers/devices (PSUs) for only firmware/software updating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0124568
U.S. Patent No. 11,036,421
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193