DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on January 31, 2024.
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 .
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 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implementable method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
identifying a processor environment installed on an information handling system from a plurality of processor environments;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the identifying step, a human can read processor environment information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify a processor environment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
The additional element (1) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional element (2) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation without details on how it is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
The additional element (1) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to gathering BIOS information from an information handling system. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (2) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation with no restriction on how the performing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the operation, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) the information handling system includes an information handling system platform architecture; and,
(b) the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation manages firmware updates associated with at least one component of the information handling system platform architecture.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) the remote storage location maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use, and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4 recites further additional element that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it is mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 2-4 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-4 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 7 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 7 recites the limitations:
identifying a processor environment installed on an information handling system from a plurality of processor environments;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
a processor;
a data bus coupled to the processor; and
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium being coupled to the data bus, the computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations and comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the identifying step, a human can read processor environment information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify a processor environment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
a processor;
a data bus coupled to the processor; and
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium being coupled to the data bus, the computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations and comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for:
providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
The additional elements (1), (2) and (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The processor, the data bus and the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium are used as tools to perform the providing, identifying, performing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (4) is mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional element (5) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional element recites only the idea of performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation without details on how it is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
1. a processor;
2. a data bus coupled to the processor; and
3. a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium being coupled to the data bus, the computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations and comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for:
4. providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
5. performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
The additional elements (1), (2) and (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (4) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to gathering BIOS information from an information handling system. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (5) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation with no restriction on how the performing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the operation, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) the information handling system includes an information handling system platform architecture; and,
(b) the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation manages firmware updates associated with at least one component of the information handling system platform architecture.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) the remote storage location maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 7, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 7.
Claim 8 recites further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use, and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10 recites further additional element that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it is mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 8-10 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 7 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 7-10 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 13 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 13 recites the limitations:
a. identifying a processor environment installed on an information handling system from a plurality of processor environments;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
1. A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the identifying step, a human can read processor environment information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify a processor environment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
1. A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
2. providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
3. performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium are used as tools to perform the providing, identifying, performing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional elements (2) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional element recites only the idea of performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation without details on how it is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
1. A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
2. providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
3. performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to gathering BIOS information from an information handling system. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation with no restriction on how the performing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the operation, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) the information handling system includes an information handling system platform architecture; and,
(b) the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation manages firmware updates associated with at least one component of the information handling system platform architecture.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
(a) the remote storage location maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
(a) the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
(a) the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 13, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 13.
Claim 14 recites further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use, and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16, 19 and 20 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 14-16, 19 and 20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 13 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 13-16, 19 and 20 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
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, 7, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040205779 (hereinafter “Almeida”) in view of US 20180293061 (hereinafter “Arms”).
As per Claim 1, Almeida discloses:
A computer-implementable method for performing a firmware management operation, comprising:
identifying a processor environment installed on an information handling system from a plurality of processor environments (Paragraph [0006], “When the firmware update utility is executed, it first determines the presence of a multi-node partition and detects the partition's configuration including the memory mapped and/or IP addresses of specific resources within the partition (emphasis added); Paragraph [0013], “In the depicted embodiment, system 100 (also referred to in this disclosure as partition 100) includes a set of four interconnected nodes 101. Each node 101 has its own chassis and includes a central processing core 102, system memory 104, and I/O devices collectively represented in FIG. 1 by reference numeral 106. Each core 102 may include multiple microprocessor devices that share the system memory 104 such that each node 101 is a suitable for use as a symmetrical multiprocessor (SMP) system [identifying a processor environment installed on an information handling system from a plurality of processor environments] (emphasis added).”;
performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments (Paragraph [0006], “After determining various configuration parameters associated with the partition, the boot node is responsible for creating an image of the firmware update code and distributing the created image to each of the partition's nodes [performing a processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments] (emphasis added).”.
Almeida does not disclose:
providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;
However, Arms discloses:
providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS (Paragraph [0020], “In other circumstances, the second BIOS image reflects a more substantial alteration in the UEFI variables reflected in the first BIOS image. For example, the second BIOS image may require a reformatting of the temporary memory within the information handling system, and consequently, changes to the variable value locations for each of the UEFI variables included in the second BIOS image [providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS] (emphasis added).”;
Almeida is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for updating system firmware on multiple, interconnected system. Arms is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding operating an automated UEFI variable update management system on an information handling system. Thus, Almeida and Arms are both analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Arms into the teaching of Almeida to include “providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS;” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include an information handling system to allow users to take advantage of the value of the information (Arms, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 7 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 13 is non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 19, the rejection of Claim 13 is incorporated; and Almeida does not explicitly disclose:
the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location.
However, Arms discloses:
the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (Paragraph [0030], “The information handling system 100 may execute code instructions 124 that may operate on servers or systems, remote data centers, or on-box in individual client information handling systems according to various embodiments herein (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0034], “In a networked deployment, the information handling system 100 may operate in the capacity of a server or as a client user computer in a server-client user network environment, or as a peer computer system in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment [the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location] (emphasis added).”;
Arms is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding operating an automated UEFI variable update management system on an information handling system. Thus, Arms is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Arms into the teaching of Almeida to include “the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to deploy the server resources into client devices to share resources in a network environment (Arms, paragraph [0034]).
As per Claim 20, the rejection of Claim 13 is incorporated; and Almeida does not explicitly disclose:
the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis.
However, Arms discloses:
the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (Paragraph [0002], “The variations in information handling systems allow for information handling systems to be general or configured for a specific user or specific use such as […] (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0034], “In a networked deployment, the information handling system 100 may operate in the capacity of a server or as a client user computer in a server-client user network environment, or as a peer computer system in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment [the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis] (emphasis added).”;
Arms is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding operating an automated UEFI variable update management system on an information handling system. Thus, Arms is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Arms into the teaching of Almeida to include “the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to deploy the server resources into client devices to share resources in a network environment (Arms, paragraph [0034]).
Claims 2, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arms as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20180060061 (hereinafter “Savagaonkar”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Almeida and Arms discloses “the information handling system” and “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation” but the combination of Almeida and Arms does not explicitly disclose:
the information handling system includes an information handling system platform architecture; and,
the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation manages firmware updates associated with at least one component of the information handling system platform architecture.
However, Savagaonkar discloses:
[...] platform architecture; and (Paragraph [0005], “Each one of these components (or planes) of the network virtualization platform architecture is implemented by a combination of software, firmware, and hardware provided by different vendors and entities [[...] platform architecture; and] (emphasis added).”,
[...] associated with at least one component of […] platform architecture (Paragraph [0005], “[…] There is often a need to upgrade the software and roll out new versions, bug fixes, implement upgrades, etc., for different components of the network virtualization platform [[...] associated with at least one component of […] platform architecture] (emphasis added).”.
Savagaonkar is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of upgrading nodes of a network virtualization platform. Thus, Savagaonkar is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Savagaonkar into the combined teachings of Almeida and Arms to include “the information handling system includes an information handling system platform architecture; and, the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation manages firmware updates associated with at least one component of the information handling system platform architecture.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include a platform architecture to help manage component updates within systems (Savagaonkar, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 8 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 14 is non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arms as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20240028735 (hereinafter “Savage”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Almeida discloses “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation” and “the plurality of processor environments” but the combination of Almeida and Arms does not explicitly disclose:
the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.
However, Savage discloses:
[...] accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates […] (Paragraph [0044], “For example, an entity associated with I/O device 502 may push firmware update package 510, an entity associated with information handling system 100 may push firmware update package, BMC 190 may retrieve the firmware update package from a cloud firmware update database, or the like [[...] accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates […]] (emphasis added).”,
Savage is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an information handling system that automated update of a customized secure boot policy. Thus, Savage is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Savage into the combined teachings of Almeida and Arms to include “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a remote storage location when managing firmware updates associated with the plurality of processor environments.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow retrieving firmware updates from a cloud source.
Claim 9 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim 15 is non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arms and Savage as applied to claims 3, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of US 20210365558 (hereinafter “Samuel”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Almeida, Arms and Savage discloses “the remote storage location” but the combination of Almeida, Arms and Savage does not explicitly disclose:
the remote storage location maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates.
However, Samuel discloses:
[…] maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates (Paragraph [0025], “In an example, information handling system 206 may perform one or more operations to add or upend the offline measurement payload for the BIOS component firmware update to the proper catalog within the golden measurement database or catalog 260 [[…] maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates] (emphasis added).”.
Samuel is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding performing firmware image integrity verification on an information handling system. Thus, Samuel is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Samuel into the combined teachings of Almeida, Arms and Savage to include “the remote storage location maintains a catalog of a plurality of firmware component updates.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the information handling system by maintaining a catalog with additional data (Samuel, paragraph [0022]).
Claim 10 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claim 16 is non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arms as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Savagaonkar and US 20230112734 (hereinafter “Suryanarayana”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Almeida and Arms discloses “the information handling system” and “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation” but the combination of Almeida and Arms does not explicitly disclose:
the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates for a platform and recommends a single information handling system firmware update.
However, Savagaonkar discloses:
a platform (Paragraph [0005], “Each one of these components (or planes) of the network virtualization platform architecture is implemented by a combination of software, firmware, and hardware provided by different vendors and entities [a platform] (emphasis added).”
Savagaonkar is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of upgrading nodes of a network virtualization platform. Thus, Savagaonkar is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Savagaonkar into the combined teachings of Almeida and Arms to include “a platform” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include a platform architecture to help manage component updates within systems (Savagaonkar, paragraph [0005]).
However, Suryanarayana discloses:
[…] accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates […] and recommends a single […] firmware update (Paragraph [0042], “For example, a firmware update package, such as a security vulnerability fix firmware update package, may be received by the firmware update module 502 of the information handling system. The firmware update module 502 may assemble a modular security firmware update package 520, which may include information regarding the firmware modules to be updated. For example, the modular security firmware update package 520 may include an index of one or more firmware volumes to be updated based on the received update package including a list of firmware modules to be updated. […] In some embodiments, firmware modules may be referred to as firmware fragments. In some embodiments, the runtime modular flash update module 504 may obtain vendor provided security patches and scan the firmware layout of the current stored firmware image to dynamically generate modular fragments using a received firmware update package to form the modular security update package [[…] accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates […] and recommends a single […] firmware update] (emphasis added);”.
Suryanarayana is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of upgrading nodes of a network virtualization platform. Thus, Suryanarayana is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Suryanarayana into the combined teachings of Almeida, Arms and Savagaonkar to include “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates for a platform and recommends a single information handling system firmware update.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enhance the security of the information handling system by providing a security vulnerability fix firmware update package that includes a list of firmware modules to be updated (Suryanarayana, paragraph [0042]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and the combination of Almeida, Arms and Savagaonkar discloses “the information handling system” but the combination of Almeida and Arms does not explicitly disclose:
the single information handling system update is provided to the information handling system via a fully interpolated firmware module update array.
However, Suryanarayana discloses:
the single […] update is provided to […] via a fully interpolated firmware module update array (Paragraph [0042], “The firmware update module 502 may assemble a modular security firmware update package 520, which may include information regarding the firmware modules to be updated. For example, the modular security firmware update package 520 may include an index of one or more firmware volumes to be updated based on the received update package including a list of firmware modules to be updated [the single […] update is provided to […] via a fully interpolated firmware module update array] (emphasis added).”.
Suryanarayana is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of upgrading nodes of a network virtualization platform. Thus, Suryanarayana is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Suryanarayana into the combined teachings of Almeida, Arms and Savagaonkar to include “the single information handling system update is provided to the information handling system via a fully interpolated firmware module update array.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enhance the security of the information handling system by providing a security vulnerability fix firmware update package that includes a list of firmware modules to be updated (Suryanarayana, paragraph [0042]).
Claim 11 and 12 are system claims corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 5 and 6, respectively). Therefore, Claim 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 5 and 6.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arms, Savage and Samuel as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20230112734 (hereinafter “Suryanarayana”).
As per Claim 17, the rejection of Claim 16 is incorporated; and the combination of Almeida, Arms, Savage and Samuel discloses “the information handling system”, “a platform” and “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation” but the combination of Almeida, Arms, Savage and Samuel does not explicitly disclose:
the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates for a platform and recommends a single information handling system firmware update.
However, Suryanarayana discloses:
[…] accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates […] and recommends a single […] firmware update (Paragraph [0042], “For example, a firmware update package, such as a security vulnerability fix firmware update package, may be received by the firmware update module 502 of the information handling system. The firmware update module 502 may assemble a modular security firmware update package 520, which may include information regarding the firmware modules to be updated. For example, the modular security firmware update package 520 may include an index of one or more firmware volumes to be updated based on the received update package including a list of firmware modules to be updated. […] In some embodiments, firmware modules may be referred to as firmware fragments. In some embodiments, the runtime modular flash update module 504 may obtain vendor provided security patches and scan the firmware layout of the current stored firmware image to dynamically generate modular fragments using a received firmware update package to form the modular security update package [[…] accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates […] and recommends a single […] firmware update] (emphasis added);”.
Suryanarayana is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of upgrading nodes of a network virtualization platform. Thus, Suryanarayana is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Suryanarayana into the combined teachings of Almeida, Arms, Savage and Samuel to include “the processor environment agnostic firmware update management operation accesses a vulnerability chain accelerator when managing firmware updates, the vulnerability chain accelerator dynamically interpolates all reported firmware updates for a platform and recommends a single information handling system firmware update.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enhance the security of the information handling system by providing a security vulnerability fix firmware update package that includes a list of firmware modules to be updated (Suryanarayana, paragraph [0042]).
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 17 is incorporated; and the combination of Almeida, Arms, Savage and Samuel discloses “the information handling system” but the combination of Almeida, Arms, Savage and Samuel does not explicitly disclose:
the single information handling system update is provided to the information handling system via a fully interpolated firmware module update array.
However, Suryanarayana discloses:
the single […] update is provided to […] via a fully interpolated firmware module update array (Paragraph [0042], “The firmware update module 502 may assemble a modular security firmware update package 520, which may include information regarding the firmware modules to be updated. For example, the modular security firmware update package 520 may include an index of one or more firmware volumes to be updated based on the received update package including a list of firmware modules to be updated [the single […] update is provided to […] via a fully interpolated firmware module update array] (emphasis added).”.
Suryanarayana is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of upgrading nodes of a network virtualization platform. Thus, Suryanarayana is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Suryanarayana into the combined teachings of Almeida, Arms, Savage and Samuel to include “the single information handling system update is provided to the information handling system via a fully interpolated firmware module update array.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enhance the security of the information handling system by providing a security vulnerability fix firmware update package that includes a list of firmware modules to be updated (Suryanarayana, paragraph [0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 10534918 (hereinafter “Davidi”) discloses a method for analyzing firmware vulnerabilities and corresponding remedial actions.
US 2015/0019850 (hereinafter “Rivera”) discloses a method and apparatus for firmware-based system security, integrity, and restoration for computers and mobile devices.
US 2015/0154014 (hereinafter “Adachi”) discloses an image forming apparatus capable of updating firmware appropriately.
US 2024/0028729 (hereinafter “Liu”) discloses providing a BMC RAS offload driver update via a BIOS update release for an information handling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191