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 .
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 7,877,521), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki in view of Yakovlev et al.(US 7,200,694), hereinafter referred to as Yakovlev and Rochette et al. (US 7,784,058), hereinafter referred to as Rochette.
Referring to claim 1, Suzuki teaches, as claimed, a method of enabling hot plugging operations in a computer system, the method comprising: initializing a platform driver, wherein the platform driver is installed on a computer system running an operating system (i.e.-initiating configuration software 1000 at the startup of a computer system, col. 9, lines 17-21), wherein the operating system does not natively support hot plug functionality (i.e.-the configuration software does not support hot plugged switch and bridge devices, col. 4, lines 29-34); hot plugging a PCIe node in the computer system (i.e.-hot plugging PCIe device, col. 9, lines 20-22); detecting, using the platform driver, the hot plugging of the PCI node in the computer system (i.e.-detecting insertion of the new PCIe device using a notification from hot-plugging control line, col. 11, lines 1-3 and col. 12, lines 23-27); configuring the PCIe node, using the platform driver, wherein the configured PCIe node comprises a PCI hierarchy (i.e.-topology information, col. 11, lines 16-19), the PCI hierarchy comprising an allocation of PCI bridges and devices of the configured PCIe node (i.e.-the topology information representing I/O devices connected to PCIe switch, col. 20, line 66 to col. 23, line 6); bringing the devices of the hot plugged configured PCIe node into service for use by the computing system (i.e.-the completion of configuring the inserted device enables using the hot plugged device, col. 12, lines 10-18); and enabling, using the platform driver, an interrupt function and a hardware detection notification function of the computer system (i.e.-generating an interrupt and notification of insertion of an I/O device, col. 12, lines 7-10).
However, Suzuki does not teach the step of disabling, using the platform driver, an interrupt function and a hardware detection notification function of the computer system; and wherein the platform driver handles one or more data exchanges between a kernel of the operating system and the platform driver.
On the other hand, Yakovlev discloses method and system for disabling an interrupt function, which in turn disables/stops notifying any hardware detection to the computer system (col. 9, lines 64-66). Furthermore, Rochette disclsoes a computing system for executing multiple applications comprising an operating system kernel module to enable data exchange between the kernel module and a device driver (col. 2, lines 54-57 and col. 3, lines 65-67).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Suzuki and incorporate the step of: disabling, using the platform driver, an interrupt function and a hardware detection notification function of the computer system; and wherein the platform driver handles one or more data exchanges between a kernel of the operating system and the platform driver, as taught by Yakovlev and Rochette. The motivation for doing so would have been to set the initial condition of the computer system when initialization occurs at system boot; and to embed a kernel module in the operating system kernel to serve as an interface between an application and a device driver.
As to claim 2, the modified Suzuki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the PCIe node comprises hardware that is hot pluggable into the computer system (col. 9, lines 21-22).
As to claim 3, the modified Suzuki teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the PCIe node is not preconfigured (col. 12, lines 10-12).
As to claim 4, the modified Suzuki teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the interrupt function is a hot plug interrupt function (col. 11, lines 1-5).
As to claim 5, the modified Suzuki innately teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the hardware detection notification function is a presence detect changed notification function (col. 12, lines 40-49).
As to claim 6, the modified Suzuki in view of Yakovlev teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the platform driver communicates with a PCIe root port of a central processing unit of the computer system to disable the hot plug interrupt function and the detection notification function (see Yakovlev, col. 9, lines 64-66).
As to claim 7, the modified Suzuki teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the step of detecting the inserting of the PCI node comprises polling a PCIe presence detect state bit of the computer system (col. 12, lines 39-44).
As to claim 8, the modified Suzuki in view of Yakovlev teaches the method of claim 5 further comprising enabling the interrupt function and the hardware detection notification function of the computer system (see Yakovlev, col. 10, lines 8-12).
As to claim 9, the modified Suzuki teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising triggering a detection of a hot plug interrupt and provision of a presence detect changed notification to the operating system (col. 10, lines 1-7).
As to claim 10, the modified Suzuki in view of Yakovlev teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the triggering step comprises disabling the interrupt function and the hardware detection notification function of the computer system (see Yakovlev, col. 9, lines 64-66).
As to claim 11, the modified Suzuki innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the enabling, using the platform driver, an interrupt function and a hardware detection notification function of the computer system step is performed temporarily or for a brief time period to support detection of a hot plugged device (col. 9, lines 19-22).
As to claim 12, the modified Suzuki in view of Yakovlev teaches teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising processing the hot plug interrupt using the operating system (see Yakovlev, col. 9, line 64 – to col. 10, line 6).
As to claim 13, the modified Suzuki in view of Yakovlev teaches the method of claim 12 further comprising detecting configuration of the PCIe node using the operating system (see Yakovlev, col. 9, line 64 – to col. 10, line 6).
As to claim 14, the modified Suzuki innately teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the computer system is operable to support PCIe root port resource padding (col. 13, lines 48-52).
As to claim 15, the modified Suzuki teaches the method of claim 7, wherein a change in the presence detect state bit indicates hot plugging of the unconfigured PCIe node (col. 12, lines 34-36).
As to claim 16, the modified Suzuki innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting, using the platform driver, the hot plugging of the PCI node in the computer system further comprises polling a PCIe presence detect state bit using the platform driver (col. 12, lines 23-27 and 39-44).
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184