DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks pp. 7-8) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the Examiner’s new ground of rejections based on added references to address applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20190235890 A1) in view of Lee (US 20140351458 A1) and Christopher (US 20180032470 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schnoor teaches a method, comprising: programming, (
Schnoor discloses, “Virtual function configuration, implemented by logic to expose the appropriate USB descriptors which contain the correct configuration to emulate both the fixed ‘control function’ (if present) and a connected ‘virtual function’ of any standard USB device class or a vendor-specified device class, with endpoint interfaces as desired,” ¶ 0033,
“This control may also be device-driven, in which case the device will contain either internal configuration data or external bus or interface communications logic, and shall instantiate its own virtual functions, based either on its stored configuration data or any detected devices on the external bus or interface,” ¶ 0039,
“In the following embodiment, an I3C probe is disclosed in which a virtual USB hub is implemented, and which comprises a USB device that acts as an I3C host controller. Moreover, this functionality is implemented over a single USB channel between the host and the I3C probe, while enabling concurrent connection to multiple I3C slaves and/or slave functions in a target system connected to the I3C probe via an I3C bus or a USB Type-C interface that allocates a pair of sideband pins to be used for implementing an I3C bus,” ¶ 0051,
“As depicted in a block 512, following some link initialization operations that are automatically performed via the applicable USB and I3C interfaces, communication will be established over the USB and I3C links (or over the single USB-C link). As depicted in a block 514, once communication is established, I3C master 420 will communicate over I3C bus 468 to enumerate any I3C slaves that are connected to I3C interface 448, and forward corresponding I3C active configuration information to control function 206a,” ¶ 0064.
The claimed “virtual device” is mapped to the disclosed “USB device” of the I3C probe. Said “USB device” acts as an I3C host controller.
The claimed “predetermined value” is mapped to the disclosed configuration data that is used to instantiate a virtual function. The configuration data is programmed to, or assigned to, the virtual function.
This is consistent with page 6 of the present application’s specification, which states “The configuration parameter may include or consist of all or a portion of a serial number for the virtual resource, which may be programmed or otherwise assigned by the BMC.” This means that “programming the configuration parameter of a virtual device with a predetermined value” is equivalent to “assigning the predetermined value to the configuration parameter”.);
and (
PNG
media_image1.png
621
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed “triggering event” is mapped to Fig. 5 504’s having detected USB interface and/or Fig. 5 508’s having detected a USB hub is connected to the USB interface. The steps after Fig. 5 508 are all “in response to” to the mapped triggering event.
The virtual device, mapped to the “USB device” of the I3C Probe, is exposed.
Schnoor teaches to expose the virtual device to a host operating system (OS), stating:
“Accordingly, in response to I3C probe 400 being connected to DTS 402 (e.g., using an appropriate USB cable), the DTS will detect that a USB device has been plugged in to USB interface 438, as depicted by a block 508,” ¶ 0062,
“Upon receipt of the information sent to the DTS in block 520, applicable USB operating system software components, such as a USB OS driver in a USB software stack, process the received enumerated virtual USB configuration information in a block 522 to update the system configuration information in the OS device manager 488, as well as update associated USB resource configuration information that is not shown that is exposed by the operating system to enable software running on the DTS to access those USB resources,” ¶ 0068.
In the disclosed paragraphs, the USB device is exposed to a host operating system by said operating system allowing access of USB resources associated with the USB device.);
and responsive to determining the detected event comprises a triggering event, executing an OS action associated with the predetermined value of the configuration parameter (
Schnoor discloses, “Virtual function configuration, implemented by logic to expose the appropriate USB descriptors which contain the correct configuration to emulate both the fixed ‘control function’ (if present) and a connected ‘virtual function’ of any standard USB device class or a vendor-specified device class, with endpoint interfaces as desired,” ¶ 0033,
and “Upon receipt of the information sent to the DTS in block 520, applicable USB operating system software components, such as a USB OS driver in a USB software stack, process the received enumerated virtual USB configuration information in a block 522 to update the system configuration information in the OS device manager 488, as well as update associated USB resource configuration information that is not shown that is exposed by the operating system to enable software running on the DTS to access those USB resources,” ¶ 0068.
The claimed “OS action” is mapped to the disclosed configuration, access, and other usage of the mapped virtual device, and such actions are associated with the predetermined value, because the virtual devices are made available to be used by being configured according to the configuration values.).
Schnoor does not teach programming, by a baseboard management controller (BMC) of an information handling system, a configuration parameter of a virtual device, nor does it teach activating, by the BMC, the virtual device to expose the virtual device to a host operating system, wherein the host OS is configured to recognize said activating as a detected event.
However, Lee teaches activating recognize said activating as a detected event (
Lee discloses, “If the external device 303 supports USB connectivity, then the first controller 501 activates the first USB unit 507, activates a USB host driver through the first USB unit 507, and executes a USB host function, thereby recognizing the external device 303,” ¶ 0071.).
Schnoor and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide activating the virtual device to expose the virtual device to a host operating system, wherein the host OS is configured to recognize said activating as a detected event. Doing so would help allow for providing improved integration between the host and the virtual device. (Lee discloses, “If the external device 303 supports USB connectivity, then the first controller 501 activates the first USB unit 507, activates a USB host driver through the first USB unit 507, and executes a USB host function, thereby recognizing the external device 303,” ¶ 0071.).
Schnoor in view of Lee does not teach programming, by a baseboard management controller (BMC) of an information handling system, a configuration parameter of a virtual device, and activating, by the BMC, the virtual device.
However, Christopher teaches programming, by a baseboard management controller (BMC) of an information handling system, a configuration parameter of a virtual device, and activating, by the BMC, the virtual device (
Christopher discloses, “A component that is normally included in a server-class computer to implement the IPMI standard is known as a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC),” ¶ 0003, and “As described infra, a BMC may implement the CDC protocol. Thus, the BMC can expose multiple serial ports to its host. The host USB driver can present the CDC devices as legacy serial ports to the host OS. As such, the host OS can communicate with the USB CDC devices as if they are physical serial ports,” ¶ 0021.
The claimed “information handling system” is mapped to the disclosed “server-class computer” that handles information from external devices such as the USB CDC devices.
After the combination of Schnoor in view of Lee, with Christopher, the baseboard management controller of Christopher is used to assign the configuration parameter of the virtual device from of Schnoor in view of Lee, and activate said virtual device.).
Schnoor in view of Lee, and Christopher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Christopher and provide programming, by a baseboard management controller (BMC) of an information handling system, a configuration parameter of a virtual device, and activating, by the BMC, the virtual device to expose the virtual device to a host operating system. Doing so would help allow for providing improved integration between the software and hardware of the system. (Christopher discloses, “A BMC is a specialized microcontroller embedded on the motherboard of the computer, which manages the interface between the system management software and the platform hardware. The BMC generally provides the ‘intelligence’ in the IPMI architecture,” ¶ 0028.).
Claim 11 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual device comprises a virtual Universal Serial Bus (USB) device (
Schnoor discloses, “Virtual function configuration, implemented by logic to expose the appropriate USB descriptors which contain the correct configuration to emulate both the fixed ‘control function’ (if present) and a connected ‘virtual function’ of any standard USB device class or a vendor-specified device class, with endpoint interfaces as desired,” ¶ 0033.).
Claim 16 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claims 2-5, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20190235890 A1) in view of Lee (US 20140351458 A1), Christopher (US 20180032470 A1), and Pittarello (US 20120064942 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher teaches the method of claim 1. Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher does not teach wherein a detection daemon running in a user space of the host OS is configured to determine whether the detected event comprises a triggering event.
However, Pittarello teaches wherein a detection daemon running in a user space of the host OS is configured to determine whether the detected event comprises a triggering event (
Pittarello discloses, “The present invention provides a method of the aforementioned type, characterized in that it includes the implementation of a daemon in the user space, ensuring as a background task the detection of events from the core space, and controlling the following steps:” ¶ 0007, “loading a host USB stack in the core space for later communication with the MMSIM card and,” ¶ 0008, and “creating and configuring the network interface when the daemon detects the physical connection of an MMSIM card,” ¶ 0009.).
Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher, and Pittarello are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Pittarello and provide wherein a detection daemon running in a user space of the host OS is configured to determine whether the detected event comprises a triggering event. Doing so would help allow for automatic detection and processing of events. (Pittarello discloses, “One understands that the mode for creating an interface described here, is easy to implement, the presence of the daemon allowing an automatic recognition and an automatic connection between the telephone and the server of the MMSIM card,” ¶ 0053).
Claim 12 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Schnoor in view of Lee, Christopher, and Pittarello teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the detection daemon determines whether the detected event satisfies any of one or more rules, wherein each rule defines one or more matching criteria and associates the matching criteria with a host OS action definition (
Schnoor discloses, “During the boot process, well-known conventional firmware and operating system boot operations will be performed, including configuration enumeration of the various IO ports and interfaces for the DTS host computer. This will include enumeration of any USB interfaces, including USB interface 438 which is detected and initially configured in accordance with its USB type, as depicted in a block 504. For example, if USB interface 438 is a USB 3.0 interface than DTS will configure an appropriate USB 3.0 driver to be used for communication USB interface 438. If USB interface 438 is a USB-C interface, then a USB-C driver will be configured and used for communication,” ¶ 0061.
The claimed “matching criteria” is mapped to the criteria for determining whether the USB interface is of a specified USB type such as USB 3.0 or USB-C.).
Claim 13 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Schnoor in view of Lee, Christopher, and Pittarello teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the matching criteria specify matching values any one or more of: an action type of the detected event; a subsystem type of the virtual device; a vendor identifier indicative of vendor of the baseboard management controller; and a model identifier indicative of a model of the baseboard management controller (
Schnoor discloses, “This will include enumeration of any USB interfaces, including USB interface 438 which is detected and initially configured in accordance with its USB type, as depicted in a block 504. For example, if USB interface 438 is a USB 3.0 interface than DTS will configure an appropriate USB 3.0 driver to be used for communication USB interface 438. If USB interface 438 is a USB-C interface, then a USB-C driver will be configured and used for communication,” ¶ 0061.
The claimed “subsystem type of the virtual device” is mapped to the disclosed “USB type”.).
Claim 14 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 4. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Schnoor in view of Lee, Christopher, and Pittarello teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the host OS action definition includes the predetermined value of the configuration parameter as an attribute of the host OS action (
Schnoor discloses, “This will include enumeration of any USB interfaces, including USB interface 438 which is detected and initially configured in accordance with its USB type, as depicted in a block 504. For example, if USB interface 438 is a USB 3.0 interface than DTS will configure an appropriate USB 3.0 driver to be used for communication USB interface 438. If USB interface 438 is a USB-C interface, then a USB-C driver will be configured and used for communication,” ¶ 0024.
As seen in the disclosure, the USB type is used as an attribute in configuring the USB interface.).
Claim 15 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20190235890 A1) in view of Lee (US 20140351458 A1), Christopher (US 20180032470 A1), and Shu (US 20140052902 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher teaches the method of claim 6. Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher does not teach wherein the virtual USB device is selected from: a virtual USB block storage device; and a virtual USB network interface controller (NIC).
However, Shu teaches wherein the virtual USB device is selected from: a virtual USB block storage device; and a virtual USB network interface controller (NIC) (
Shu discloses, “The generation module 102 allocates a serial number to each memory block and uses the memory blocks to form sectors of the virtual USB flash device. In one embodiment, a size of a memory block should be a multiple of 512 bytes,” ¶ 0016.).
Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher, and Shu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Shu and provide wherein the virtual USB device is selected from: a virtual USB block storage device; and a virtual USB network interface controller (NIC). Doing so would help allow the memory blocks of the block storage device to constitute the virtual USB device. (Shu discloses, “Memory blocks of the selected USB devices 2 are used to constitute a virtual USB flash device,” ¶ 0014.).
Claim 17 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20190235890 A1) in view of Lee (US 20140351458 A1), Christopher (US 20180032470 A1), and Henkel (US 20110055448 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher teaches the method of claim 1. Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher does not teach wherein the configuration parameter comprises a serial number for the virtual device.
However, Henkel teaches wherein the configuration parameter comprises a serial number for the virtual device (
Henkel discloses, “The specification mandatorily requires a one-to-one correspondence of a USB device with a virtual interface, generated by means of interface drivers, for USB connections by means of the serial number of the connected USB device,” ¶ 0007.).
Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher, and Henkel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Henkel and provide wherein the configuration parameter comprises a serial number for the virtual device. Doing so would help allow easier identification of the virtual device associated with the serial number. (Henkel discloses, “The product identification is an identification of the product type which can be stored separately or as part of a serial number in the programmable controller,” ¶ 0022.).
Claim 18 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20190235890 A1) in view of Lee (US 20140351458 A1), Christopher (US 20180032470 A1), Pittarello (US 20120064942 A1), and Hurst (US 20160105814 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher teaches the method of claim 1. Schnoor teaches wherein determining that the detected event comprises a triggering event includes (
Schnoor discloses, “During the boot process, well-known conventional firmware and operating system boot operations will be performed, including configuration enumeration of the various IO ports and interfaces for the DTS host computer. This will include enumeration of any USB interfaces, including USB interface 438 which is detected and initially configured in accordance with its USB type, as depicted in a block 504. For example, if USB interface 438 is a USB 3.0 interface than DTS will configure an appropriate USB 3.0 driver to be used for communication USB interface 438. If USB interface 438 is a USB-C interface, then a USB-C driver will be configured and used for communication,” ¶ 0061.).
Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher does not teach passing the detected event to a user space of the host OS wherein a detection daemon running in the user space is configured to determine whether the detected event satisfies any of one or more rules specifying criteria for metadata associated with the detected event.
However, Pittarello teaches passing the detected event to a user space of the host OS wherein a detection daemon running in the user space is configured to process a detected event (
Pittarello discloses, “The present invention provides a method of the aforementioned type, characterized in that it includes the implementation of a daemon in the user space, ensuring as a background task the detection of events from the core space, and controlling the following steps:” ¶ 0007.).
Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher, and Pittarello are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Pittarello and provide passing the detected event to a user space of the host OS wherein a detection daemon running in the user space is configured to determine whether the detected event satisfies any of one or more rules specifying criteria. Doing so would help allow for automatic detection and processing of events. (Pittarello discloses, “One understands that the mode for creating an interface described here, is easy to implement, the presence of the daemon allowing an automatic recognition and an automatic connection between the telephone and the server of the MMSIM card,” ¶ 0053).
Schnoor in view of Lee, Christopher, and Pittarello does not teach that the rules specify criteria for metadata associated with the detected event.
However, Hurst teaches rules that specify criteria for metadata associated with the detected event (
Hurst discloses, “The rules engine component 806 may include a series of processes, threads, applications, or the like that monitor event messages and/or a set of message metadata to determine whether particular rule criteria have been met by those event messages and/or set of message metadata,” ¶ 0110.).
Schnoor in view of Lee, Christopher, and Pittarello, and Hurst are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee, Christopher, and Pittarello to incorporate the teachings of Hurst and provide rules that specify criteria for metadata associated with the detected event. Doing so would help allow for taking different actions based on the metadata. (Hurst discloses, “When criteria for a rule are met, particular action may be taken. For example, rules may generate notifications by email, as a mobile push notification, through an audio output device in a home, or by various other notification techniques when a new, unknown device is detected,” ¶ 0110).
Claim 19 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20190235890 A1) in view of Lee (US 20140351458 A1), Christopher (US 20180032470 A1), and Forrest (US 20130067120 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher teaches the method of claim 1. Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher does not teach wherein the host OS action comprises a script executable by the host OS.
However, Forrest teaches wherein the host OS action comprises a script executable by the host OS (
Forrest discloses, “In one approach, the USB bidi extender 210 creates script-based objects representing the port/device to implement bidi communication for the device. In general, the script-based objects operate as an interface to handle corresponding script-based requests, communication, and data for bidi interaction between a computing device 102 and a USB device 106. Moreover, the objects are used to execute script and act as an intermediary between applications, the operating system, and USB devices,” ¶ 0045.).
Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher, and Forrest are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schnoor in view of Lee and Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Forrest and provide wherein the host OS action comprises a script executable by the host OS. Doing so would help allow for more efficient interaction between the host OS and USB devices. (Forrest discloses, “Moreover, the objects are used to execute script and act as an intermediary between applications, the operating system, and USB devices,” ¶ 0045.).
Claim 20 is an information handling system claim corresponding to the method Claim 10. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Puthillathe et al. (US 20180314611 A1): Virtual Debugging Of Server Operations
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 ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights