DETAILED ACTION
This Action is a response to the reply filed 8 August 2025. Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 and 20 are amended; claims 2 and 12 are canceled; no claims are newly added. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 remain pending for examination.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer et al., U.S. 2019/0163462 A1 (“Bayer”) in view of Collins et al., U.S. 2022/0414455 A1 (“Collins”), and in further view of Gupta et al., U.S. 2020/0249646 A1 (“Gupta”) and Sangameswaran et al., U.S. 2017/0242679 A1 (“Sangameswaran”).
Regarding claim 1, Bayer teaches: An information handling system (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “Updating software in a computer system …”), comprising:
a processor (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “wherein the computer system 212 comprises at least a central processor 216 …”); and …
wherein a particular one of the first GPUs is configured to receive a (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “central processor 216 sends the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40 to a receiving adapter card 20 of the adapter cards …” See also, e.g., ¶33, “The software may be implemented in the adapter cards … as firmware” and ¶44, “a new software is loaded to the PCI card 20 by a store_data (firmware_new, firmware_alternate) instruction …”), …
wherein, when the firmware update instruction is the GPU firmware update instruction, the particular first GPU is configured to execute a GPU firmware update (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “In response to receiving the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40, the receiving adapter card 20 applies the received software update data …”),
wherein, when the firmware update instruction is the GPU cluster firmware update instruction, the particular first GPU is configured to execute the GPU firmware update to update a GPU firmware for the particular first GPU, and to forward the GPU firmware update to the remaining first GPUs via the first internal interface (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “In response to receiving the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40, the receiving adapter card 20 applies the received software update data … Then the received software update data 70 and the modified distribution map 42 are sent according to the at least one modified distribution map 42 to at least one next adapter card …”); and
wherein each remaining first GPU is configured to execute the GPU firmware update to update the GPU firmware for each remaining first GPU (Bayer, e.g., ¶39, “Subsets of the distribution map 42 are created … pushing new software to a first PCI card … in the subset … A software update on that PCI card is directly initiated …”).
In Bayer, the groups (baseboards) of devices are network adapter cards rather than GPUs. Accordingly, Bayer does not more particularly teach a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface. However, Collins does teach: a first graphics processing unit (GPU) baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by an associated first external interface, and being coupled together by a first internal interface (Collins, e.g., FIG. 33D, GPU 3384(A) through (D), each GPU coupled to CPU 3380(A) through PCIe switch 3382(A) or (B), and being coupled together via internal interface 3388) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Bayer in view of Collins does not more particularly teach that upon receiving a firmware update instruction, it is determined whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and based thereon either updating a single GPU or first updating a first GPU which forwards the update to remaining GPUs. However, Gupta does teach: [first device configured to receive an update instruction], and to determine whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction; [if an update instruction, updating a first device, and if a cluster update instruction, first updating a first device which then forwards updates to other devices] (Gupta, e.g., FIGS. 5-6 and, e.g., ¶73, “embodiments of update packages 500 and 600 … Update package 500 … may include a single device model update, while software update package 600 … may include multiple device model updates. Update package 500 is shown to include a table of contents 502 and a device 1 update package …” See also, e.g., ¶75, “Device 1 update package 504 may include one or more updates (e.g., … firmware … for a particular device (e.g., HVAC device 402 … package 504 may include firmware to update the main code of the device …” See also, e.g., ¶76, “Update package 600 is shown to include table of contents 602, device 1 update package 604, device 2 update package 606, and device N update package 608 …” and ¶78, “update package 600 may arrive at device 1. Device 1 update package 604 is implemented in device 1 and device 1 is updated. Update package 600 may then, absent device 1 update package 604, be transmitted to device 2 for updating …” Examiner’s note: device 1 reads any incoming update package 500 or 600. The device receives information from the table of contents to determine whether they include updates relevant to that device and/or one or more additional devices. Based on the information in the table of contents, the single device is updated, or the single device is updated after which the updates are transmitted to one or more other devices within the network (i.e., a cluster of devices)) for the purpose of facilitating automatic updates of firmware to any quantity of devices in a system, from a single update to an update of every device in the system, from a single access point, based on information in one or more update packages (Gupta, e.g., ¶¶38, 73-78 et seq.).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer in view of Collins to provide that upon receiving a firmware update instruction, it is determined whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and based thereon either updating a single GPU or first updating a first GPU which forwards the update to remaining GPUs because the disclosure of Gupta shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed and configurable system device firmware installation and updating to provide that upon receiving a firmware update instruction, it is determined whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and based thereon either updating a single GPU or first updating a first GPU which forwards the update to remaining GPUs for the purpose of facilitating automatic updates of firmware to any quantity of devices in a system, from a single update to an update of every device in the system, from a single access point, based on information in one or more update packages (Gupta, Id.).
Bayer in view of Collins and Gupta does not more particularly teach that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU. However, Sangameswaran does teach: [wherein each remaining first GPU is configured …] to send an update status to the particular first GPU (Sangameswaran, e.g., ¶35, “Once the software updates have been successfully installed, the process will receive a state log identifying the success or failure of various update installations …” Examiner’s note: the vehicle control units (target / remaining first GPU) provides status update to a log that is transmitted to the process (i.e. as performed by a server / first GPU, that is, the machine/device initiating the installations)) for the purpose of tracking target device software states before and after attempts to install updates for data maintenance and troubleshooting purposes (Sangameswaran, e.g., ¶¶34-35, 40-41).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer in view of Collins and Gupta to provide that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU because the disclosure of Sangameswaran shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed and configurable device firmware updating and status tracking to provide that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU for the purpose of tracking target device software states before and after attempts to install updates for data maintenance and troubleshooting purposes (Sangameswaran, Id.).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Bayer further teaches: wherein, when the firmware update instruction is the GPU cluster firmware update instruction, the particular (Bayer, e.g., ¶36, “next adapter card 22, 24 in the modified distribution map 42, in response to receiving the software update data 70 and the modified distribution map … further modified distribution map 42 comprises a disjoint subset of network identifiers …” See also, e.g., ¶37, “software update data 70 and the modified distribution map 42 are then sent … to at least one next adapter card …” Examiner’s note: see, e.g., FIG. 15, wherein at least two redundancy groups (i.e., similar to first and second baseboards) are connected via separate sets of internal and external interfaces; a distribution map may handle updates of both partitions; that is, when distributing the update and map in successive steps, the distribution may pass through both the internal and external interfaces).
As with claim 1, in the groups (baseboards) of devices are network adapter cards rather than GPUs. Accordingly, Bayer does not more particularly teach a second GPU baseboard including a plurality of second GPUs coupled together by a second internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a second external interface. However, Collins does teach: a second GPU baseboard including a plurality of second GPUs, each second GPU being coupled to the processor by an associated first external interface and being coupled together by a second internal interface, the first internal interface being coupled to the second internal interface by a second external interface (Collins, e.g., FIG. 33D, GPU 3384(E) through (H), each GPU coupled to CPU 3380(B) through PCIe switch 3382(C) or (D), and being coupled together via internal interface (interconnecting arrows, not numbered)) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, and Bayer further teaches: wherein each second GPU is configured to execute the GPU firmware update to update the GPU firmware for the particular second GPU (Bayer, e.g., ¶36, “next adapter card … in response to receiving the software update data … applies the received software update …”).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and Bayer further teaches: wherein the particular first GPU is designated as a parent GPU and the remaining first GPUs and all of the second GPUs are designated as child GPUs (Bayer, e.g., ¶43, “central processor 216 adds a first configured adapter card as ‘root’ for the first iteration … assigns the next 2 adapter cards as leaves to the root … assigns the next 2 adapter cards as leaves to the first leave …” Examiner’s note: root is interpreted as consistent with parent, and leaf as child; see also, e.g., ¶39, “software update on that PCI card is directly initiated. At the end completion is reported to the parent, i.e. the PCI card 20 …”).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and Bayer further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to provide the (Bayer, e.g., ¶43, “central processor 216 adds a first configured adapter card as ‘root’ for the first iteration …” See also, e.g., ¶44, “a new software 70 is loaded to the PCI card 20 by a store_data … instruction …” Examiner’s note: PCI card 20 is the one designated as the root (parent)).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, and Bayer further teaches: wherein the remaining first GPUs and all of the second GPUs are designated as child GPUs based upon a GPU list (Bayer, e.g., ¶43, “creation of a distribution map 40 … central processor 216 adds a first configured adapter card as ‘root’ … assigns the next 2 adapter cards as leaves …”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, but Bayer does not more particularly teach that the first external interfaces are PCI-e interfaces. However, Collins does teach: wherein the first external interfaces are Peripheral Component Interconnect-Express interfaces (Collins, e.g., FIG. 33D, PCIe switches 3382(A) and (B), interfacing with each of the GPUs 3384(A) to (D)) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide that the first external interfaces are PCI-e interfaces because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide that the first external interfaces are PCI-e interfaces for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, but Bayer does not more particularly teach that the first and second internal interfaces are NVIDIA NVSwitch interfaces. However, Collins does teach: wherein the first and second internal interfaces are NVIDIA NVSwitch interfaces (Collins, e.g., ¶282, “GPUs 3384 are connected via an NVLink and/or NVSwitch SoC …”) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide that the first and second internal interfaces are NVIDIA NVSwitch interfaces because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide that the first and second internal interfaces are NVIDIA NVSwitch interfaces for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, but Bayer does not more particularly teach that the second external interface is a NVIDIA NVLink interface. However, Collins does teach: wherein the second external interface is a NVIDIA NVLink interfaces (Collins, e.g., ¶247, “GPU(s) … may be coupled to SoC(s) 3304 via a high-speed interconnect (e.g., NVIDIA’s NVLINK channel …”) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide that the second external interface is a NVIDIA NVLink interface because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide that the second external interface is a NVIDIA NVLink interface for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Regarding claim 11, Bayer teaches: A method (Bayer, e.g., ¶31, “illustrative embodiments described herein provide a method for updating software in a computer system …”) comprising: …
receiving, by a particular one of the first GPUs, a (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “central processor 216 sends the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40 to a receiving adapter card 20 of the adapter cards …” See also, e.g., ¶33, “The software may be implemented in the adapter cards … as firmware” and ¶44, “a new software is loaded to the PCI card 20 by a store_data (firmware_new, firmware_alternate) instruction …”); …
executing, by the particular first GPU, a GPU firmware update (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “In response to receiving the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40, the receiving adapter card 20 applies the received software update data …”);
forwarding, by the particular first GPU, the GPU firmware update (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “Then the received software update data 70 and the modified distribution map 42 are sent according to the at least one modified distribution map 42 to at least one next adapter card …”);
executing, by each remaining first GPU, the GPU firmware update to update the GPU firmware for each remaining first GPU (Bayer, e.g., ¶39, “Subsets of the distribution map 42 are created … pushing new software to a first PCI card … in the subset … A software update on that PCI card is directly initiated …”).
In Bayer, the groups (baseboards) of devices are network adapter cards rather than GPUs. Accordingly, Bayer does not more particularly teach a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface. However, Collins does teach: coupling a processor to a first graphics processing unit (GPU) baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by an associated first external interface and being coupled together by a first internal interface (Collins, e.g., FIG. 33D, GPU 3384(A) through (D), each GPU coupled to CPU 3380(A) through PCIe switch 3382(A) or (B), and being coupled together via internal interface 3388; Examiner’s note: internally connected groups of the GPUs (e.g., 3384(A) through (D) is consistent with a baseboard) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Bayer in view of Collins does not more particularly teach determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and updating the first GPU in either case while forwarding the update to additional GPUs when the instruction is a cluster update instruction. However, Gupta does teach: [receiving by a first device an update instruction], determining, by the particular first GPU, whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction; [updating the first device in either case, and forwarding the update to remaining devices if the instruction is a cluster update instruction] (Gupta, e.g., FIGS. 5-6 and, e.g., ¶73, “embodiments of update packages 500 and 600 … Update package 500 … may include a single device model update, while software update package 600 … may include multiple device model updates. Update package 500 is shown to include a table of contents 502 and a device 1 update package …” See also, e.g., ¶75, “Device 1 update package 504 may include one or more updates (e.g., … firmware … for a particular device (e.g., HVAC device 402 … package 504 may include firmware to update the main code of the device …” See also, e.g., ¶76, “Update package 600 is shown to include table of contents 602, device 1 update package 604, device 2 update package 606, and device N update package 608 …” and ¶78, “update package 600 may arrive at device 1. Device 1 update package 604 is implemented in device 1 and device 1 is updated. Update package 600 may then, absent device 1 update package 604, be transmitted to device 2 for updating …” Examiner’s note: device 1 reads any incoming update package 500 or 600. The device receives information from the table of contents to determine whether they include updates relevant to that device and/or one or more additional devices. Based on the information in the table of contents, the single device is updated, or the single device is updated after which the updates are transmitted to one or more other devices within the network (i.e., a cluster of devices)) for the purpose of facilitating automatic updates of firmware to any quantity of devices in a system, from a single update to an update of every device in the system, from a single access point, based on information in one or more update packages (Gupta, e.g., ¶¶38, 73-78 et seq.).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer in view of Collins to provide for determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and updating the first GPU in either case while forwarding the update to additional GPUs when the instruction is a cluster update instruction because the disclosure of Gupta shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed and configurable system device firmware installation and updating to provide for determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and updating the first GPU in either case while forwarding the update to additional GPUs when the instruction is a cluster update instruction for the purpose of facilitating automatic updates of firmware to any quantity of devices in a system, from a single update to an update of every device in the system, from a single access point, based on information in one or more update packages (Gupta, Id.).
Bayer in view of Collins and Gupta does not more particularly teach that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU. However, Sangameswaran does teach: sending, by each remaining first GPU, an update status to the particular first GPU (Sangameswaran, e.g., ¶35, “Once the software updates have been successfully installed, the process will receive a state log identifying the success or failure of various update installations …” Examiner’s note: the vehicle control units (target / remaining first GPU) provides status update to a log that is transmitted to the process (i.e. as performed by a server / first GPU, that is, the machine/device initiating the installations)) for the purpose of tracking target device software states before and after attempts to install updates for data maintenance and troubleshooting purposes (Sangameswaran, e.g., ¶¶34-35, 40-41).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer in view of Collins and Gupta to provide that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU because the disclosure of Sangameswaran shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed and configurable device firmware updating and status tracking to provide that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU for the purpose of tracking target device software states before and after attempts to install updates for data maintenance and troubleshooting purposes (Sangameswaran, Id.).
Claims 13-18 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejections of claims 3-8 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 10 (which incorporates claim 9) above.
Regarding claim 20, Bayer teaches: wherein a particular one of the (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “central processor 216 sends the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40 to a receiving adapter card 20 of the adapter cards …” See also, e.g., ¶33, “The software may be implemented in the adapter cards … as firmware” and ¶44, “a new software is loaded to the PCI card 20 by a store_data (firmware_new, firmware_alternate) instruction …”),
wherein, when the firmware update instruction is the GPU firmware update instruction, the particular (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “In response to receiving the software update data 70 and the distribution map 40, the receiving adapter card 20 applies the received software update data …”); and
wherein, when the firmware update instruction is the GPU cluster firmware update instruction, the particular (Bayer, e.g., ¶34, “Then the received software update data 70 and the modified distribution map 42 are sent according to the at least one modified distribution map 42 to at least one next adapter card …”); and
wherein each remaining GPU is configured to execute the GPU firmware update to update the GPU firmware for each remaining GPU (Bayer, e.g., ¶39, “Subsets of the distribution map 42 are created … pushing new software to a first PCI card … in the subset … A software update on that PCI card is directly initiated …”).
In Bayer, the groups (baseboards) of devices are network adapter cards rather than GPUs. Accordingly, Bayer does not more particularly teach a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface. However, Collins does teach: A graphics processing unit (GPU) baseboard, comprising: a plurality of GPUs, each GPU being coupled to a processor by an associated external interface; and an internal interface coupled to each of the GPUs (Collins, e.g., FIG. 33D, GPU 3384(A) through (D), each GPU coupled to CPU 3380(A) through PCIe switch 3382(A) or (B), and being coupled together via internal interface 3388; Examiner’s note: internally connected groups of the GPUs (e.g., 3384(A) through (D) is consistent with a baseboard) for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, e.g., ¶¶282-287).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface because the disclosure of Collins shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed parallel GPU and other processing unit functionality to provide for a first GPU baseboard including a plurality of first GPUs coupled together by a first internal interface, each first GPU being coupled to the processor by a first external interface for the purpose of providing for distributed parallel processing in one or more processing devices interfaced with one or more external devices (Collins, Id.).
Bayer in view of Collins does not more particularly teach determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and updating the first GPU in either case while forwarding the update to additional GPUs when the instruction is a cluster update instruction. However, Gupta does teach: [receiving by a first device an update instruction], to determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction; [updating the first device in either case, and forwarding the update to remaining devices if the instruction is a cluster update instruction] (Gupta, e.g., FIGS. 5-6 and, e.g., ¶73, “embodiments of update packages 500 and 600 … Update package 500 … may include a single device model update, while software update package 600 … may include multiple device model updates. Update package 500 is shown to include a table of contents 502 and a device 1 update package …” See also, e.g., ¶75, “Device 1 update package 504 may include one or more updates (e.g., … firmware … for a particular device (e.g., HVAC device 402 … package 504 may include firmware to update the main code of the device …” See also, e.g., ¶76, “Update package 600 is shown to include table of contents 602, device 1 update package 604, device 2 update package 606, and device N update package 608 …” and ¶78, “update package 600 may arrive at device 1. Device 1 update package 604 is implemented in device 1 and device 1 is updated. Update package 600 may then, absent device 1 update package 604, be transmitted to device 2 for updating …” Examiner’s note: device 1 reads any incoming update package 500 or 600. The device receives information from the table of contents to determine whether they include updates relevant to that device and/or one or more additional devices. Based on the information in the table of contents, the single device is updated, or the single device is updated after which the updates are transmitted to one or more other devices within the network (i.e., a cluster of devices)) for the purpose of facilitating automatic updates of firmware to any quantity of devices in a system, from a single update to an update of every device in the system, from a single access point, based on information in one or more update packages (Gupta, e.g., ¶¶38, 73-78 et seq.).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer in view of Collins to provide for determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and updating the first GPU in either case while forwarding the update to additional GPUs when the instruction is a cluster update instruction because the disclosure of Gupta shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed and configurable system device firmware installation and updating to provide for determining whether the firmware update instruction is a GPU firmware update instruction or a GPU cluster firmware update instruction, and updating the first GPU in either case while forwarding the update to additional GPUs when the instruction is a cluster update instruction for the purpose of facilitating automatic updates of firmware to any quantity of devices in a system, from a single update to an update of every device in the system, from a single access point, based on information in one or more update packages (Gupta, Id.).
Bayer in view of Collins and Gupta does not more particularly teach that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU. However, Sangameswaran does teach: [wherein each remaining first GPU is configured …] to send an update status to the particular GPU (Sangameswaran, e.g., ¶35, “Once the software updates have been successfully installed, the process will receive a state log identifying the success or failure of various update installations …” Examiner’s note: the vehicle control units (target / remaining GPU) provides status update to a log that is transmitted to the process (i.e. as performed by a server / GPU, that is, the machine/device initiating the installations)) for the purpose of tracking target device software states before and after attempts to install updates for data maintenance and troubleshooting purposes (Sangameswaran, e.g., ¶¶34-35, 40-41).
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 the system and method for distributed and hierarchical firmware transmission and update as taught by Bayer in view of Collins and Gupta to provide that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU because the disclosure of Sangameswaran shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for distributed and configurable device firmware updating and status tracking to provide that each remaining first GPU is configured to send an update status to the particular first GPU for the purpose of tracking target device software states before and after attempts to install updates for data maintenance and troubleshooting purposes (Sangameswaran, Id.).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues: The independent claims, as amended, distinguish over the previously cited prior art of record, and are accordingly in condition for allowance, as are all claims depending therefrom (Resp. at 6).
Examiner’s Response: In view of the amendments, Examiner newly cites to Sangameswaran, and maintains the rejections under the new grounds set forth in full above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons, whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529, and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at (571) 272-3708. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights