DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/359,775 filed on 09/01/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims.
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 .
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.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 08/16/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 1-2, 4-10, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 9 and 17, the claims 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 “determining, by the management controller, a first subset of different devices in the composable computing system that are accessible”, and “determining, by the management controller, a second subset of the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system that are capable”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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. That is, the limitation “determining, by the management controller, a first subset of different devices in the composable computing system that are accessible”, and “determining, by the management controller, a second subset of the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system that are capable” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, 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 “management controller”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “receiving, by a management controller of a composable computing system, a request to execute a system configuration operation to support a processing function”, “dynamically combining, by the management controller, the different devices comprising the second subset of the first subset as a single abstracted device”, and “deploying the processing function to the single abstracted device”. The “management controller”, “a processor”, “a memory” are 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The addition element “receiving, by a management controller of a composable computing system, a request to execute a system configuration operation to support a processing function” represents the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply “dynamically combining, by the management controller, the different devices comprising the second subset of the first subset as a single abstracted device”, and “deploying the processing function to the single abstracted device” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “combining” and “deploying” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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).
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 are “management controller”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “receiving, by a management controller of a composable computing system, a request to execute a system configuration operation to support a processing function”, “dynamically combining, by the management controller, the different devices comprising the second subset of the first subset as a single abstracted device”, and “deploying the processing function to the single abstracted device” the mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, under prong 2, the “wherein the different devices in the composable computing system comprise different types of Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) devices” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, under prong 2, the “wherein the single abstracted device communicates with the second subset of the first subset of different devices via the pre- existing connections without manual intervention” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, under prong 2, the “wherein a first device in the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system includes a second controller that coordinates internal communication between a plurality of chipsets within the first device, and external communication with the management controller” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, under prong 2, the “wherein the management controller is in communication with a plurality of interconnect fabrics that enable communications between different devices in the composable computing system” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, under prong 2, the “wherein deploying the processing function to the single abstracted device comprises providing, by the management controller, output from the single abstracted device corresponding with the processing function” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, under prong 2, the “wherein deploying the processing function enables the processing function to operationalize the processing function to the single abstracted device” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0257566 to Ganguli et al. (hereafter “Ganguli”) in further view of US 2017/0171752 to Lee et al. (hereafter “Lee”)
As per claim 1, Ganguli discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a management controller of a composable computing system (FIG. 1; paragraph 0031 and 0034: “For example, if managed nodes are composed (e.g., resources collectively combined to provide certain functionality) based on requirements of the workloads that will be running on them, resources within a node are more likely to be fully utilized.”), a request to execute a system configuration operation to support a processing function (paragraphs 0061, 0071, 0080, 0086-0087, and 0111-0115: “The microtask resource controller 1726, which may be embodied as hardware, firmware, software, virtualized hardware, emulated architecture, and/or a combination thereof as discussed above, is configured to control the composition of disaggregated microservice resources (i.e., microtask resources) to perform the requested services. To do so, the illustrative microtask resource controller 1726 includes a database service 1728 configured to manage one or more databases, a timestamp service 1730 configured to apply timestamps, and a compose service 1732 configured to compose services via the microtask resources. The resource allocator 1734 is configured to allocate resources for each microtask, as may be requested by the other microtasks (e.g., the database service 1728, the timestamp service 1730, the compose service 1732, etc.) via a corresponding thread. It should be appreciated that the resource allocator 1734 is at the lowest level in the hierarchy of microtasks.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] processing the workloads);
determining, by the management controller, a first subset of different devices in the composable computing system that are accessible (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; paragraphs 0032, 0082-0083, 0118, 0124 and 0126: nodes 820, 1020, 1220 and 1440), the first subset of different devices being connected by connections between the different devices (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; interconnection 842, 1042, 1242 and 1442 including multiple pod switches, Omni-path, InfiniBand or ethernet as disclosed by paragraph 0032);
determining, by the management controller, a second subset of the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system that are capable (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; paragraphs 0082-0083, 0118, 0124 and 0126: nodes 820, 1020, 1220 and 1440), the second subset of the first subset having combined execution capabilities to execute the processing function (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; paragraphs 0082-0083, 0118, 0124 and 0126: “One or more of the sleds 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560 may be grouped into a managed node 1570, such as by the orchestrator server 1520, to collectively perform a workload (e.g., an application 1532 executed in a virtual machine or in a container). The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400. Further, the managed node may be established, defined, or “spun up” by the orchestrator server 1520 at the time a workload is to be assigned to the managed node or at any other time, and may exist regardless of whether any workloads are presently assigned to the managed node.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] processing the workload);
dynamically combining, by the management controller, the different devices comprising the second subset of the first subset as a single abstracted device (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; paragraphs 0082-0083, 0118, 0124 and 0126: “One or more of the sleds 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560 may be grouped into a managed node 1570, such as by the orchestrator server 1520, to collectively perform a workload (e.g., an application 1532 executed in a virtual machine or in a container). The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] managed node 1570 (a single abstract device as claimed)), the single abstracted device communicating with the second subset of the first subset of different devices via the connections (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; interconnection 842, 1042, 1242 and 1442 including multiple pod switches, Omni-path, InfiniBand or ethernet as disclosed by paragraph 0032) to perform coordinated processing functions (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; paragraphs 0082-0083, 0118, 0124 and 0126: “One or more of the sleds 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560 may be grouped into a managed node 1570, such as by the orchestrator server 1520, to collectively perform a workload (e.g., an application 1532 executed in a virtual machine or in a container).); and
deploying the processing function to the single abstracted device (paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088: “The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400. Further, the managed node may be established, defined, or “spun up” by the orchestrator server 1520 at the time a workload is to be assigned to the managed node or at any other time, and may exist regardless of whether any workloads are presently assigned to the managed node.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] assigning/distributing/scheduling (deploying as claimed) the workload to the managed nodes).
Ganguli discloses a connection between devices (FIGs. 8, 10, 12 and 14), however, Ganguli does not explicitly disclose the connections between devices are pre-existed.
Lee further discloses the connections between devices are pre-existed (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Lee into Ganguli’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of reusing the preexisted connection to create a secure connection (Lee, paragraph 0015).
As per claim 2, Ganguli discloses wherein the different devices in the composable computing system comprise different types of Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) devices (FIGs. 8 and 10; paragraphs 0061 and 0067: “For example, the accelerator circuits 1020 may be embodied as, for example, field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), security co-processors, graphics processing units (GPUs), neuromorphic processor units, quantum computers, machine learning circuits, or other specialized processors, controllers, devices, and/or circuits.”)
As per claim 4, Ganguli discloses wherein the single abstracted device communicates with the second subset of the first subset of different devices via the pre-existing connections without manual intervention (FIGs. 8, 10, 12, and 14-15; interconnection 842, 1042, 1242 and 1442 including multiple pod switches, Omni-path, InfiniBand or ethernet as disclosed by paragraph 0032).
Ganguli discloses a connection between devices (FIGs. 8, 10, 12 and 14), however, Ganguli does not explicitly disclose communicates with the second subset of the first subset of different devices via the pre-existing connections without manual intervention.
Lee further discloses communicates with the second subset of the first subset of different devices via the pre-existing connections without manual intervention (paragraphs 0090, 0093 and 0098: “in establishing the secure connection with the service network node the processing circuit may be configured to determine whether the radio access network node has a pre-existing secure connection with the service network node. If the pre-existing secure connection is available, the processing circuit is configured to reuse the pre-existing secure connection with the service network node is reused.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Lee into Ganguli’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of reusing the preexisted connection to create a secure connection (Lee, paragraph 0015).
As per claim 6, Ganguli discloses wherein the management controller is in communication with a plurality of interconnect fabrics that enable communications between different devices in the composable computing system (FIGs. 12, 14-15 and 17; paragraphs 0072).
As per claim 8, Ganguli discloses wherein deploying the processing function enables the processing function to operationalize the processing function to the single abstracted device (paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088: “The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400. Further, the managed node may be established, defined, or “spun up” by the orchestrator server 1520 at the time a workload is to be assigned to the managed node or at any other time, and may exist regardless of whether any workloads are presently assigned to the managed node.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] assigning/distributing/scheduling (deploying as claimed) the workload to the managed nodes).
As per claim 9, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 12, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 14, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 6. Accordingly, claim14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 16, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 8. Accordingly, claim16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 17, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli in view of Lee, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17, and in further view of US 2013/0091286 to Spencer
As per claim 3, Ganguli discloses wherein the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system are accessible when the different devices receive commands/requests from management controller (paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088: “The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400. Further, the managed node may be established, defined, or “spun up” by the orchestrator server 1520 at the time a workload is to be assigned to the managed node or at any other time, and may exist regardless of whether any workloads are presently assigned to the managed node.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] assigning/distributing/scheduling (deploying as claimed) the workload to the managed nodes) and the management controller adds operations to the different devices, either directly at the device or through a dispatcher/scheduler component of the composable computing system (FIGs. 16-17; paragraphs 0086, 0108, 0111 and 0118: “the network traffic ingress/egress manager 1708 is configured to manage (e.g., create, modify, delete, etc.) connections to physical and virtual network ports (i.e., virtual network interfaces) of the controller compute device 1604 (e.g., via the communication circuitry 1616), as well as the ingress buffers/queues associated therewith.” ).
Ganguli does not explicitly disclose the management controller adds operations to a queue at the different devices.
Spencer further discloses the management controller adds operations to a queue at the different devices (FIG. 1; paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Spencer into Ganguli’s teaching and Lee’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of enabling the exchanger to pair individual threads available to the exchanger with connections 164 from the connection pool to drive I/O between the local computing device and the remote computing device (Spencer, paragraph 0104).
As per claim 11, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 19, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli in view of Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of US 2023/0222082 to Dastidar et al. (hereafter “Dastidar”)
As per claim 5, Ganguli does not explicitly disclose wherein a first device in the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system includes a second controller that coordinates internal communication between a plurality of chipsets within the first device, and external communication with the management controller.
Dastidar further discloses wherein a first device in the first subset of different devices in the composable computing system includes a second controller that coordinates internal communication between a plurality of chipsets within the first device (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0017 and 0020: NOC 170), and external communication with the management controller (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0017 and 0020: NOC 170 connecting to I/O Gateway including (PCIE controller) to host/server 105).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Dastidar into Ganguli’s teaching and Lee’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a smart network interface controller (SmartNIC) that includes an I/O gateway configured to couple to an external host and a processor subsystem connected to the I/O gateway that includes processing cores and an interconnect communicatively coupling the processing cores (Dastidar, paragraph 0005).
As per claim 13, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli in view of Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of US 2012/0047506 to Maes
As per claim 7, Ganguli discloses wherein deploying the processing function to the single abstracted device (paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088: “The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400. Further, the managed node may be established, defined, or “spun up” by the orchestrator server 1520 at the time a workload is to be assigned to the managed node or at any other time, and may exist regardless of whether any workloads are presently assigned to the managed node.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] assigning/distributing/scheduling (deploying as claimed) the workload to the managed nodes).
Ganguli does not explicitly disclose providing, by the management controller, output from the single abstracted device corresponding with the processing function.
Maes further discloses providing, by the management controller, output from the single abstracted device corresponding with the processing function (FIG. 8; paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Maes into Ganguli’s teaching and Lee’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of A usage monitor enabler SE can be a particular SE that allows monitoring of the usage of resources or enablers by querying or subscribing to usage information for the enabler (Maes, paragraph 0066).
As per claim 15, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior art:
US 2024/0338505 to Adler
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an example of a system 200 for facilitating generation of integrated circuits having composable interconnect, for facilitating generation of a circuit representation for an integrated circuit, and/or for programming or manufacturing an integrated circuit. The system 200 is an example of an internal configuration of a computing device that may be used to implement the integrated circuit design service infrastructure 110, and/or to generate a file that generates a circuit representation of an integrated circuit design like the integrated circuit design 700 shown in FIG. 7 and/or the integrated circuit design 800 shown in FIG. 8. The system 200 can include components or units, such as a processor 202, a bus 204, a memory 206, peripherals 214, a power source 216, a network communication interface 218, a user interface 220, other suitable components, or a combination thereof.
US 2022/0247503 to Marshall
The selector 160 is configured to access the associated composable EM attenuation values 122 for each identified tile 310 (e.g., from the memory hardware 146) of the remote system 140.
US 2021/0374056 to Malladi
As used herein, composable can refer to a property through which a given device (e.g., a cache coherent enabled device in a particular cluster) can request and/or obtain resources (e.g., memory, compute, and/or network resources) from a different portion of the network (e.g., at least one other cache coherent enabled device in a second cluster), for example, to execute at least a portion of a workload. In some embodiments, composability, as used herein, can include the use of fluid pools of physical and virtual compute, storage, and fabric resources into any suitable configuration to run any application or workload.
US 2020/0077535 to Mekad
In some examples, in a fungible or composable architecture, expansion device 24 provides hooks for detecting and identifying an external interface of an external device, such as storage nodes 12 or compute nodes 13, interfaced with expansion device 24. Expansion device 24 may configure a DPU 17 with the identified external interface. Further, Expansion device 24 may manage hot insertion and removal of external devices according to such external interfaces.
US 2019/0042319 to Sood
In addition, this may be delivered in a “composable” platform with independent scaling of cores, system-on-chips (SoCs), storage class memory (e.g., memristor memory or other byte addressable storage system with response times sufficient to be used directly by processing circuitry to execute application), network interface controllers (NICs), etc.
US 2018/0356867 to O'Hora
The software engine that runs the virtualized grid is the virtualization layer 202, which abstracts the traditional physical resources from the control systems and the user interfaces. The virtualization layer 202 acts as a virtualized middleware layer, similar to a hypervisor, to manage virtualized resources. The virtualization layer 202 may run on a small computing device, and can perform a number of functions—unlike the traditional BMS 102 depicted in FIG. 1.
US 2017/0054603 to Kulkarni
the HMS 102 composes, configures, and manages composable servers (e.g., the composed server node 118) using disaggregated CPUs, memory, storage, and/or network components of the disaggregated physical hardware resources 108 discovered in the physical rack 104. The example HMS 102 is also capable of dynamically recomposing (e.g., upgrading, updating, downgrading, etc.) composed servers by, for example, adding and/or removing hardware components to/from composed servers.
US 2011/0004549 to Gray
Wireless device provisioning may be facilitated by a client-server interaction, for example wherein the configurable wireless device connects to a remote server and requests and receives provisioning instructions therefrom via a pre-existing communication link.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215. 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.
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.
/TUAN C DAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198