Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 22-42 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 40-42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, the examiner recommends amending the limitation as follows “The method of claim 22, wherein the migrating the service executing on the first device to the second device comprises:”.
Claims 40-42 depend on claim 39 which recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the examiner recommends amending claims 40-42 to also recite “non-transitory computer-readable medium”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 23-26, are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
However, the limitations to “a processor selecting a third device to operate as a boot strap processor” of claim 23 and “selecting the second device from among one or more processors to which the updated firmware is to be applied” of claim 26, as drafted, recite functions that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a first device”, “second device” and “migrating a service executing on the first device to a second device;”, “causing the first device to enter a disabled state;”, “storing the firmware; and causing the first device to reset, wherein the resetting the device causes the first device to execute the stored firmware”. The “device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The additional elements “migrating a service executing on the first device to a second device;”, “a second device executing the migrated service”, “causing the first device to enter a disabled state;”, and “causing the device to reset, wherein the device to reset comprises the device executing the stored firmware”, wherein the selected device is one of a group of devices that execute the updated firmware and wherein the boot strap processor performs the causing the first device to enter a disabled state, storing the firmware for access by the device, and causing the first device to reset” fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application and at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Further, the limitation “storing the firmware;” is merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “first device”, “second device” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept. The storing limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 24-25 recite non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 31 and claim 40 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim 23 for having similar limitations. Claim 41 also rejected under the same rationale as claim 26 for having similar limitations.
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 22, 28-30, 36-37, 39, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2018/0246757 A1) hereinafter Li in view of Trier et al. (US 10,846,113 B1) hereinafter Trier.
Regarding claim 22, Li discloses
A method comprising:
updating firmware on a first device during operation of the first device by:
migrating a service executing on the first device to a second device (Li [0076] discloses migrating the running service on the second VM to the first VM);
a second device executing the migrated service (Li [0074] discloses migrating the running service to the first VM to ensure the running service is not interrupted);
causing the first device to enter a disabled state (Li [0076] discloses disabling the second VM after migrating the running service from the second VM to the first VM);
Li lacks explicitly
storing the firmware
causing the first device to reset, wherein the resetting the device causes the first device to execute the stored firmware.
Trier teaches
storing the firmware (Trier [col. 9, lines 25-30] teaches the firmware can be stored in storage location accessible by the BMC); and
causing the first device to reset, wherein the resetting the device causes the first device to execute the stored firmware (Trier [col. 9, lines 14-35] teaches rebooting the BMC to load the new firmware image which may be a virtual machine image which may be launched after loading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Trier to “storing the firmware; and causing the first device to reset, wherein the resetting the device causes the first device to execute the stored firmware” in order to efficiently initialize and stabilize the hardware, optimize resources, and accurately apply the update.
Regarding claim 28, Li in view of Trier teach
The method of claim 22,
Li lacks explicitly
wherein the first device comprises one or more of: a multi-thread core, a central processing unit (CPU), an XPU, a graphics processing unit (GPU), a network interface device, or application specific integrated circuit (ASIC).
Trier further teaches
wherein the first device comprises one or more of: a multi-thread core (No rejection required due to “one or more of” language), a central processing unit (CPU) (No rejection required due to “one or more of” language), an XPU (No rejection required due to “one or more of” language), a graphics processing unit (GPU) (No rejection required due to “one or more of” language), a network interface device (Trier [col. 6, lines 65-67 and col. 7, lines 1-5] teach the device containing NICs), or application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (No rejection required due to “one or more of” language).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Trier to “wherein the first device comprises a network interface device” in order to improve connectivity and speed, increase resource sharing, improve security, enhance reliability, extend scalability and flexibility, and boost performance.
Regarding claim 29, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 22. Thus claim 29 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 36, the combination teaches
The system of claim 29, comprising:
Li lacks explicitly
a baseboard management controller (BMC) is to cause the firmware update on the at least one processor.
Trier teaches
a baseboard management controller (BMC) is to cause the firmware update on the at least one processor (Trier [claim 5] teaches the BMC to receive and apply the update to the firmware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Trier to “a baseboard management controller (BMC) to cause the firmware update on the at least one processor” in order to improve remote management and monitoring, increased efficiency and reduced costs during updates, and enhanced security.
Regarding claim 37, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 28. Thus claim 37 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Regarding claim 39, it’s directed to a computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 22. Thus claim 39 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 41, it’s directed to a computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 26. Thus claim 41 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 42, it’s directed to a computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 28. Thus claim 42 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Claims 23, 25-26, 31, 33-34, 38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20180246757 A1) hereinafter Li in view of Trier et al. (US 10,846,113 B1) hereinafter Trier and further in view of Malleni (US 2022/0269494 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Li in view of Trier combination teaches
The method of claim 22, comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
a processor selecting a third device to operate as a boot strap processor, wherein the selected device is one of a group of devices that execute the updated firmware and wherein the boot strap processor performs the causing the first device to enter a disabled state, storing the firmware, and causing the first device to reset.
Malleni teaches
a processor selecting a third device to operate as a boot strap processor, wherein the selected device is one of a group of devices that execute the updated firmware and wherein the boot strap processor performs the causing the first device to enter a disabled state, storing the firmware, and causing the first device to reset (Malleni [0032] teaches selecting a bootstrap node computing device to install complex software product on computing devices 16-1 to 16-3 as illustrated in Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Malleni to “selecting a device to operate as a boot strap processor, wherein the selected device is one of a group of devices that are to execute the updated firmware and wherein the boot strap processor performs the causing the device to enter a disabled state, storing the firmware for access by the device, and causing the device to reset” in order to efficiently “eliminate a need for a user to understand complex networking issues and complex command-line interface commands that would otherwise be necessary to learn in order to install a complex software product on multiple bare metal machines. The examples also eliminate the potential for inadvertent mistakes that can be difficult to diagnose during a complex software product installation process. The examples facilitate a completely automated mechanism wherein multiple different users, such as software engineers responsible for testing complex software products, can each have a subset of computing devices that can be rapidly and reliably provisioned with any different version of any complex software product rapidly and reliably with a minimum amount of information and effort from the user.” (Malleni [0040]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches
The method of claim 23,
The combination lacks explicitly
wherein the group of devices comprise central processing units (CPUs) within a CPU package.
Malleni further teaches
wherein the group of devices comprise central processing units (CPUs) within a CPU package (Malleni [0041] teaches set 14 of computing devices 16-1 to 16-N where each computing devices includes a processor device 20 as illustrated in Fig. 1A. Where set 14 is similar to the CPU package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Malleni to “wherein the group of devices comprise central processing units (CPUs) within a CPU package” in order to efficiently “eliminate a need for a user to understand complex networking issues and complex command-line interface commands that would otherwise be necessary to learn in order to install a complex software product on multiple bare metal machines. The examples also eliminate the potential for inadvertent mistakes that can be difficult to diagnose during a complex software product installation process. The examples facilitate a completely automated mechanism wherein multiple different users, such as software engineers responsible for testing complex software products, can each have a subset of computing devices that can be rapidly and reliably provisioned with any different version of any complex software product rapidly and reliably with a minimum amount of information and effort from the user.” (Malleni [0040]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches
The method of claim 22, wherein the migrating a service executing on the first device to the second device comprises:
the combination lacks explicitly
selecting the second device from among one or more processors to which the updated firmware is to be applied
Malleni further teaches
selecting the second device from among one or more processors to which the updated firmware is to be applied (Malleni [0052] teaches the user 32 may then select a particular software product and a particular version from the scrollable list of software product names 112 to be installed on a subset of the computing devices 16. The user 32 may then select a control 114 to provide the information to the bare metal installer 28 via the UI handler 30.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Malleni to “selecting a device to operate as a boot strap processor, wherein the selected device is one of a group of devices that are to execute the updated firmware and wherein the boot strap processor performs the causing the device to enter a disabled state, storing the firmware for access by the device, and causing the device to reset” in order to efficiently “eliminate a need for a user to understand complex networking issues and complex command-line interface commands that would otherwise be necessary to learn in order to install a complex software product on multiple bare metal machines. The examples also eliminate the potential for inadvertent mistakes that can be difficult to diagnose during a complex software product installation process. The examples facilitate a completely automated mechanism wherein multiple different users, such as software engineers responsible for testing complex software products, can each have a subset of computing devices that can be rapidly and reliably provisioned with any different version of any complex software product rapidly and reliably with a minimum amount of information and effort from the user.” (Malleni [0040]).
Regarding claim 31, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 23. Thus claim 31 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 33, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 25. Thus claim 33 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 34, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 26. Thus claim 34 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 26 above. Further, (Malleni [0054] teaches “The user 32 may select or hover a cursor 120 over a particular computing device identifier, and in response, the UI handler 30 accesses the allocation configuration 46 to determine metrics of the computing device 16 that corresponds to the selected computing device identifier.” With the negation limitation, the above citation teaches the limitation).
Regarding claim 38, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 25. Thus claim 38 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 40, it’s directed to a computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 23. Thus claim 40 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Claims 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20180246757 A1) hereinafter Li in view of Trier et al. (US 10,846,113 B1) hereinafter Trier and further in view of Malleni (US 2022/0269494 A1) and further in view of Clebsch et al. (US 20200004510 A1) hereinafter Clebsch.
Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches
The method of claim 23,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the group of devices comprise a group of threads within a central processing unit (CPU) socket
Clebsch teaches
wherein the group of devices comprise a group of threads within a central processing unit (CPU) socket (Clebsch [0022] teaches the threads 112 may comprise: different threads on a same processor core, threads on different processor cores, threads on different cores on the same die or IC package, threads on different IC packages in the same board, threads on different boards connected together in a same data centre, threads on different devices connected together over a local-area and/or wide-area network (e.g. the Internet or a mobile cellular network such as a 3GPP network), or any combination of these).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Clebsch to “wherein the group of devices comprise a group of threads within a central processing unit (CPU) socket” in order to improve concurrency of a process, reduce execution time and enhance performance for parallel tasks.
Claims 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20180246757 A1) hereinafter Li in view of Trier et al. (US 10,846,113 B1) hereinafter Trier and further in view of Rahardjo et al. (US 2020/0134183 A1) hereinafter Rahardjo.
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches The system of claim 29,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the circuitry is to provide the firmware to the first processor when the first processor is in the idle state
Rahardjo teaches
wherein the circuitry is to provide the firmware to the first processor when the first processor is in the idle state (Rahardjo [0008] teaches halting the device and replacing the active firmware of the device with the master firmware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Zimmer to “wherein the circuitry is to provide the firmware to the first processor when the first processor is in the idle state” in order to reduce risk of data corruption, improve system stability and security, and optimize power management.
Claims 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20180246757 A1) hereinafter Li in view of Trier et al. (US 10,846,113 B1) hereinafter Trier and further in view of Clebsch et al. (US 20200004510 A1) hereinafter Clebsch.
Regarding claim 32, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 24. Thus claim 32 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 24 above.
Claims 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20180246757 A1) hereinafter Li in view of Trier et al. (US 10,846,113 B1) hereinafter Trier and further in view of Zimmer et al. (US 8,510,859 B2) hereinafter Zimmer.
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches
The method of claim 22,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the firmware comprises a microcode firmware volume (FV)
Zimmer teaches
wherein the firmware comprises a microcode firmware volume (FV) (Zimmer [col. 7, lines 50-55] teaches “Cores 158 may comprise partition manager 159 as microcode. Note that many embodiments comprise either a partition manager in firmware 176 of system 100 such as partition manager 180 or a partition manager in microcode of a processor such as partition manager 159. On the other hand, some embodiments may comprise both”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Zimmer to “wherein the firmware comprises a microcode firmware volume (FV)” in order to improve flexibility and adaptability, efficiently upgrade and maintain code, improve performance and efficiency, and simplify design and testing.
Regarding claim 35, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 27. Thus claim 35 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 27 above.
Response to Arguments
Response to 101 remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind since the human mind does not include a boot strap processor, the examiner would like to respectively point out that the selecting limitation is the mental step which may be performed with the help of a generic computer and a generic computer contains boot strap processor, while the “apply it” steps are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the storing step recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the courts have identified storing data is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the remark that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception, the examiner would like to point out that the claim is recited at a high level of generality and further a majority of the limitations recite “apply it” steps which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the storing step is merely an insignificant step that also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the remark that the combination of elements improve the functioning of a device in updating firmware, the examiner would like to point out that “apply it” steps do not improve the functioning of the computer while the storing step is WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The examiner would further like to point out that “apply it” steps are not being interpreted as WURC thus, no evidence required aside from being “apply it” steps under Step 2B.
For the above reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to 103 remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/16/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193