DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 03/17/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 08/07/2025 and 08/13/2025.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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.
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, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2015/0370294 to Busch et al., (hereinafter Busch), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2008/0104453 to Mukherjee et al., (hereinafter Mukh)
• Regarding claim 1, Busch teaches a method for managing operation of management controller enhanced devices (MCEDs) (Devices in a computing system are managed and by controller, and are interpreted as management controller enhanced devices (mceds), see P33, p41, 32, 40, Busch), the method comprising:
identifying, by a management controller of a host data processing system (A processor, such as a service management processor of a data system that hosts blades, where the service management processor can be interpreted as a management controller, see p40, Fig. 3, p38, Busch), an occurrence of a monitored event experienced by a MCED of the MCEDs based on a report from a guest management controller of the MCED (Monitoring of events, such as operations events of server devices or condition events related to environment (e.g. crac state which server devices experience by virtue of environmental effects on the devices), are identified based on report data (e.g. condition data, monitoring data, sensor data, etc.) from devices that control reception and providing (.i.e. management) of said data, such as a crac condition receiver or bmc that can be interpreted as a guest management controller, see p28-31, p44, 40-41, 48, 53-55, 57, 61-62, Fig. 3, Fig. 2, p4, Busch), the MCED being hosted by the host data processing system (Server and server devices are hosted in chassis server processing system, see Fig. 2, p28-30, p44, 40-41, 48, Fig. 3, Fig. 2, p4, Busch);
based on identifying the occurrence: identifying, by the management controller, a type of the monitored event (Events, identified as different performance condition problem types, such as partial failure, complete failure, sub-performance, etc., see p29, p53, p28-30, p44, 40-41, 48, 57, 61-62, Fig. 3, Fig. 2, p4, Busch);
obtaining, by the management controller, telemetry data based on the type of the monitored event, the telemetry data being based on operation of the MCED associated with the monitored event (Data from sensors and devices (i.e. telemetry data is obtained in relation to operation of server devices and their conditions, parameters in types of event, such as environmental or performance), see P41, p61-62, p31, p28-30, p44, 40-41, 48, 57, 61-62, Fig. 3, Fig. 2, p4, Busch);
identifying, by the management controller and based at least in part on the type of the monitored event and the telemetry data, a management action set (Based on identified conditions and from sensed telemetry data, at least a set of one action is performed, such as throttling devices, powering off, disabling, etc., thus an action set is identified, see p61-62, p32-33, p36-37, 53-54, p28-31, p44, 40-41, 48, 57, 61-62, Fig. 3, Fig. 2, p4, Busch);
and performing, by the management controller, the management action set to manage an impact of the monitored event (Based on identified conditions, at least a set of one action is performed, such as throttling devices, powering off, disabling, etc., see p61-62, p32-33, p36-37, 53-54, p28-31, p44, 40-41, 48, 57, 61-62, Fig. 3, Fig. 2, p4, Busch).
Busch does not explicitly mention a portion of telemetry data.
However, Mukh from the same or similar field of data collection and processing in computing devices, teaches a portion of telemetry data (Collected data can be filtered, thresholded, reduced, etc., including by types, meaning a portion of telemetry data is obtained from a greater amount, see p32-33, 27, 35, Mukh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by Busch and incorporating a portion of data, as taught by Mukh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better organize and manage an amount of data so as to obtain more relevant data for a desired analysis while reducing the amount of data that needs to be considered (see p32-33, 27, 35, Mukh; C5 L37-42, BeSerra).
• Regarding claim 2, the combination of Busch and Mukh teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Busch further teaches wherein identifying a management action set comprises: identifying a priority level for a monitored event, wherein the management action set is selected based on a priority level (Actions, such as throttling or shutting down devices, are selected based on identifying how critical (i.e. a level of priority) a monitored operational event is determined to be, see P61-62, Busch).
• Regarding claim 3, the combination of Busch and Mukh teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Busch further teaches wherein identifying a management action set further comprises: identifying a component of an MCED impacted by a monitored event, wherein the management action set is also selected based on the component of the MCED (Components, such as processors, hard drives, etc., form part of an impacted device and can be selected for ab action, see P58-62, P57, 41, 43, Busch).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, with at least figs.1-3 and p24, 17, and 40-41 of Busch further teaching processors, memory, and instructions for implementation of its described processes.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 4-10, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch, in view of Mukh, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2020/0201650 to Huang et al., (hereinafter Huang)
• Regarding claim 4, the combination of Busch and Mukh teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
While Busch has the implication of considering priority levels (identifying the criticality (i.e. a level of priority) of monitored operational events, see P61-62, Busch), Busch does not explicitly mention specific named priority levels such as, wherein a priority level is selected from a group of priority levels consisting of a low priority level, a medium priority level, and a high priority level.
However, Huang from the same or similar field of monitored computing devices, more explicitly teaches wherein a priority level is selected from a group of priority levels consisting of a low priority level, a medium priority level, and a high priority level (Monitoring data can be identified into specified priority levels including high, medium, and low priority levels, see p33, Huang).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by the combination that includes Busch and incorporating specified priority levels, as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better evaluate a condition of a system and categorize the relative criticality or importance of the condition so as to better decide predetermined responses to the level of the evaluated condition (see p33, p42, Huang).
• Regarding claim 5, the combination of Busch, Mukh, and Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Mukh further wherein in a first instance of identifying of a management action set where a priority level is a lowest priority level, the management action set comprises logging telemetry data while retaining operation of a component and a host data processing system (Received event information of a device that is not considered severe (i.e. condition of low priority), is logged in a table and with no specific further operational action on a device, see Fig. 6, Fig. 5, p35, p57, p68-69, 72, P17, 41, 78, 85-88, Mukh)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by Busch and incorporating at a low priority logging data and retaining operation, as taught by Mukh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better maintain a record of event condition and to better tailor corrective actions such that conditions that are not deemed to be of immediate or of no consequence do not require disrupting a system until a point that the condition can pose a risk of consequences (see Fig. 6, Fig. 5, p35, p57, p68-69, 72, P17, 41, 78, 85-88, Mukh).
Huang further teaches a priority level labeled as a low priority level (Monitoring data can be identified into specified priority levels including low priority level, see p33, Huang).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by the combination that includes Busch and incorporating specified labeled low priority level, as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better evaluate a condition of a system and categorize the relative criticality as a low importance condition so as to better decide predetermined responses to the level of the evaluated condition (see p33, p42, Huang).
• Regarding claim 6, the combination of Busch, Mukh, and Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Busch further teaches wherein in a second instance of identifying of an management action set where a priority level is a mid priority level, the management action set comprises powering down an MCED (In a case where a condition even is above a level of no concern, but less than an excessive condition (e.g. temperature is high, but not at a maximum), then an action can include shutting down a device/component from among a group of hosted devices/components, see p61, p33-38, p53-56, Busch).
Huang further teaches a priority level labeled as a medium priority level (Monitoring data can be identified into specified priority levels including medium priority level, see p33, Huang).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by the combination that includes Busch and incorporating specified labeled medium priority level, as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better evaluate a condition of a system and categorize the relative criticality as an intermediate importance condition so as to better decide predetermined responses to the level of the evaluated condition (see p61, p33-38, p53-56, Busch; p33, p42, Huang).
• Regarding claim 7, the combination of Busch, Mukh, and Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Busch further teaches wherein in a third instance of identifying of a management action set where a priority level is a highest priority level, the management action set comprises powering down an MCED and powering down a host data processing system (In a case where a condition even is at a maximum concern, then an action can include shutting down all components and computing system, see p61, p33-38, p53-56, Busch).
Huang further teaches a priority level labeled as a high priority level (Monitoring data can be identified into specified priority levels including high priority level, see p33, Huang).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by the combination that includes Busch and incorporating specified labeled high priority level, as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better evaluate a condition of a system and categorize the relative criticality as a critically important condition that requires immediate action so as to better decide predetermined responses to the level of the evaluated condition (see p61, p33-38, p53-56, Busch; p33, p42, Huang).
• Regarding claim 8, the combination of Busch, Mukh, and Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Mukh further teaches prior to identifying an occurrence of a monitored event: identifying, by a management controller, a type of MCED (When receiving and storing data associated with an event, such as a possible fault event, the information is associated as device specific, with the implication that a type of device has to be identified prior to associating the data with the specified device, see P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Mukh); identifying, by a management controller, a subset of monitorable events based on a type of MCED (When receiving and storing data associated with events by a controller, the information is associated as device specific, and can be stored as type/class specific device, meaning that of data gathered for various different components, subsets are identified for types/classes of devices, see p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Mukh); and initiating, by a management controller, active reporting for a subset of monitorable events by a guest management controller (Data associated with types of components can be gathered by a specified controller/processor and the data can be accessed and stored (i.e. reported) from and by another controller processor, see p16-18, p45, 43, p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Mukh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by Busch and incorporating type of device identification, device type data subset identification, and reporting of subset device type data, as taught by Mukh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better maintain a record of event conditions tailored to device specific associations such that data specific to a type or class of devices of interest can be accessed and analyzed for particular monitoring and action as needed for the specific component (see p16-18, p45, 43, p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Mukh).
• Regarding claim 9, the combination of Busch, Mukh, and Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Mukh further teaches wherein an occurrence of a monitored event is identified based on a report through an active reporting by a guest management controller, and the report being reported to a management controller of a host data processing system (Data on an occurrence of condition event is identified by a specified controller/processor, such as a server level diagnosis processor, and the data can be accessed, forwarded, stored (i.e. reported) to another controller processor, such as a chassis level management processor, see p16-18, p45, 43, p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Mukh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by Busch and incorporating reporting of occurrence data to another controller, as taught by Mukh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better disperse relevant information to other processors that may also analyze or oversee management of an overall system based on forwarded information, and to maintain a master information repository accessible to other processors or systems as desired (see p16-18, p45, 43, p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Mukh).
• Regarding claim 10, the combination of Busch, Mukh, and Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Mukh further teaches wherein an active reporting limits reports provided to a management controller to a subset of monitorable events and instances of the monitorable events that exceed corresponding priority thresholds (When receiving and storing data associated with events by a controller, the information can be provided as subsets of device specific data that has been filtered to limit data to certain prioritized data for corresponding devices that meet a specified (and different) threshold levels being crossed (exceeded) for consideration , and ignores other less relevant data, see p32-33, p43, p57, p49, p16-18, p45, 43, p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Mukh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management and device control as described by Busch and incorporating limiting reported data to priority levels, as taught by Mukh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better reduce and categorize an amount of data by limiting the data to a desired level of relevance that ignores what is considered irrelevant or lower priority data (see p32-33, p43, p57, p49, p16-18, p45, 43, p32, p36, 27, P49, P45-47, 36-39, 41, 43, 18, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Mukh).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BeSerra et al., US. Patent No. 10,489,232 teaches data center diagnostic that transmits information via an out-of-band channel, monitors specific (types) of information, analyses and stores information, and considers that certain data may have a low likelihood of being relevant.
Senn et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2023/0359517 teaches a monitoring system with various computing devices that each include baseboard management controllers and other corresponding components, and communication to a central controller regarding events.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117