DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 03/10/26, for application number 18/437,234 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1, 8, 14, 15, 17, and 18 have been amended, Claims 3, 4, and 11-12 were previously cancelled, Claim 13 is newly cancelled, and Claims 20-25 have been newly added. Therefore, Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 14-25 are presented for examination.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites, “wherein sending the data associated with the second device from the first device to the third device based at least part on the second query includes sending the log page from the first device to the third device based at least part on the second query.” (emphasis added)
Claim 17 depends on Claim 16, which in turn depends on Claim 15. Claim 15 recites, in part, “sending the data associated with a second device from the first device to the third device based at least part on the second query includes sending the record from the first device to the third device based at least part on the second query.” (emphasis added) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “log page” as recited in Claim 17 is interpreted to simply be a “record,” like that of Claim 15. As such, Claim 17 recites limitations equivalent to those already present in Claim 15 and does not further limit the claims on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, lines 2-3 recite, “a humidity of the second device,” and should instead read, “a humidity within the second device,” (emphasis added) as the device itself cannot be humid, but rather the air within or around the device.
Claims 22 and 24 recite limitations similar to those of Claim 20, and are objected to accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strole, US 2010/0077067 A1 (as listed in the IDS dated 11/18/24) in view of Chambliss et al., US 2014/0095790 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Strole discloses a first device [chassis management subsystem/intermediate proxy device 40, Fig. 1], comprising:
a component to store a data associated with a second device, the component configured to send a first query to the second device for the data and to receive the data from the second device based at least in part on the first query [the local agent 15A of the host computer 12A may send the query to a proxy agent 41 of the intermediate proxy device 40 over one or the available internal communication paths (using path 32 through the switch or using the direct path 36); query is for the status of the external port of device 20A (i.e. second device); port status record is maintained by intermediate proxy device 40 (i.e. component to store data associated with second device); the response is due to the query, and thus based at least in part on the query, par 27]; and
a circuit to receive a second query from a third device requesting the data associated with the second device and to send a response to the third device based at least in part on the query, the response including the data associated with the second device [when the local agent 15A sends a query to the agent maintaining the port status record (either L2 agent 21A or proxy agent 41, and a different query from the previous query), the particular agent response to the local agent with the status of the external port that is associated with the local agent 15A, par 29].
However, Strole does not explicitly teach wherein the data includes a physical variable of the second device.
In the analogous art of data management, Chambliss teaches wherein the data includes a physical variable of the second device [host queries tier info and reads the heat map (the heat map containing the physical variable of temperature), par 19, 23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Strole and Chambliss before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the monitoring of data usage in order to adjust usage to effectively utilize slow and fast devices [Chambliss, par 6].
Regarding Claim 2, Strole and Chambliss disclose the first device according to Claim 1. Strole further discloses wherein the component is configured to communicate with the second device over one or more communication channels about the data based at least in part on the circuit receiving the query [the local agent 15A of the host computer 12A may send the query to a proxy agent 41 of the intermediate proxy device 40 over one or the available internal communication paths (using path 32 through the switch or using the direct path 36); when the local agent 15A sends a query to the agent maintaining the port status record (either L2 agent 21A or proxy agent 41), the particular agent response to the local agent with the status of the external port that is associated with the local agent 15A, par 27, 29].
Regarding Claim 5, Strole and Chambliss disclose the first device according to Claim 1. Strole further discloses wherein: the first device is in a chassis [chassis management subsystem/intermediate proxy device 40 within chassis 45, Fig. 2]; the chassis includes storage associated with the first device [device 40 contains port status records, which are within chassis 45, par 34]; and the first device is configured to create a log page from the data in the storage [device 40 contains port status record 50, Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 7, Strole and Chambliss disclose the first device according to Claim 5. Strole further discloses wherein the circuit is configured to send the log page in the response to the query [when the local agent 15A sends a query to the agent maintaining the port status record (either L2 agent 21A or proxy agent 41), the particular agent response to the local agent with the status of the external port that is associated with the local agent 15A, par 29].
Regarding Claim 8, Strole discloses a method [using the chassis management subsystem 40 of Fig. 1]. The remainder of Claim 8 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 15, Strole and Chambliss disclose the method according to Claim 8. Strole further discloses wherein: the method further comprises compiling the data associated with the second device into a record; and sending the data associated with a second device from the first device to the third device based at least in part on the second query includes sending the record from the first device to the third device based in part on the second query [device 40 contains port status records, which are within chassis 45; device 40 contains port status record 50, Fig. 2; when the local agent 15A sends a query to the agent maintaining the port status record (either L2 agent 21A or proxy agent 41, and a different query from the previous query), the particular agent response to the local agent with the status of the external port that is associated with the local agent 15A, par 29].
Regarding Claim 18, Strole discloses a system, comprising: a chassis [chassis 45, Fig. 1]; a processor in the chassis [host computers 12A-12C necessarily contain processors]; and a first device [chassis management subsystem 40].
The remainder of Claim 18 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 19, Strole and Chambliss disclose the system according to Claim 18. Claim 19 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 2, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, Strole and Chambliss disclose the first device according to Claim 1. Chambliss further teaches wherein the physical variable of the second device includes at least one of a temperature of the second device, a humidity of the second device, a power-supply voltage of the second device, a fan speed of the second device, or a communications parameter of the second device [host query tier info and read heat map (the heat map being a physical variable of temperature, par 19, 23].
Regarding Claim 21, Strole and Chambliss disclose the first device according to Claim 1. Strole further discloses wherein: the first device includes a management device [chassis management subsystem/intermedia proxy device 40]; and the third device includes a host device [proxy agent 15A in hose 1 12A]. Chambliss further teaches the second device includes a storage device [heat map providing graphical representation of data and associated storage, par 19].
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Strole and Chambliss disclose the method according to Claim 8. Claims 22 and 23 recite limitations similar to those of Claims 20 and 21, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, Strole and Chambliss disclose the system according to Claim 18. Claims 24 and 25 recite limitations similar to those of Claims 20 and 21, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strole and Chambliss, and further in view of Augenstein et al., US 2012/0144136 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, Strole and Chambliss disclose the device according to Claim 5. However, while Strole discloses generating a log page from the data about the second device [device 40 contains port status record 50, Fig. 2], the combination of Strole and Chambliss does not explicitly teach a second component to generate the log page from the data about the second device.
In the analogous art of data management, Augenstein teaches a second component to generate the log page from the data [the change log 5 is created by the restore software 6, which monitors the access to the source storage volume 3, par 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Strole, Chambliss, and Augenstein before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the log generation by the second component, as taught by Augenstein, into the device as disclosed by Strole and Chambliss, to provide an efficient method of backup and restoration of data [Augenstein, par 3].
Regarding Claim 9, Strole and Chambliss discloses the method according to Claim 8. However, while Strole discloses the first device, the combination of Strole and Chambliss does not explicitly teach wherein the first device is drawn from a set including a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC), a Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) controller, or a software device.
In the analogous art of data management, Augenstein teaches wherein the first device is drawn from a set including a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC), a Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) controller, or a software device [the change log 5 is created by the restore software 6, which monitors the access to the source storage volume 3, par 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Strole, Chambliss, and Augenstein before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the restore software (software device), as taught by Augenstein, into the device as disclosed by Strole and Chambliss, to provide an efficient method of backup and restoration of data [Augenstein, par 3].
Regarding Claim 10, Strole and Chambliss disclose the method according to Claim 8. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the second device is drawn from a set including a storage device and a Network Interface Card (NIC).
In the analogous art of data management, Augenstein teaches wherein the second device is drawn from a set including a storage device and a Network Interface Card (NIC) [the change log 5 is created by the restore software 6, which monitors the access to the source storage volume 3, par 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Strole, Chambliss, and Augenstein before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the storage volume, as taught by Augenstein, into the device as disclosed by Strole and Chambliss, to provide an efficient method of backup and restoration of data [Augenstein, par 3].
Regarding Claim 14, Strole and Chambliss disclose the method according to Claim 8. However, while Chambliss teaches accessing and storing data based on a physical variable [heat map (physical variable of temperature) used to determine where to store data, par 19] the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein accessing, by the first device, the data associated with the second device includes accessing a datum from the second device based at least in part on a change in the physical variable of the second device.
In the analogous art of data management, Augenstein teaches wherein accessing, by the first device, the data associated with the second device includes accessing a datum from the second device based at least in part on a change in the configuration of the second device [the change log 5 is created by the restore software 6, which monitors the access to the source storage volume 3, par 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Strole, Chambliss, and Augenstein before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate accessing the second device based upon a change in the configuration, as taught by Augenstein, into the device as disclosed by Strole and Chambliss, to provide an efficient method of backup and restoration of data [Augenstein, par 3].
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Strole and Chambliss disclose the method according to Claim 15. Claims 16 and 17 repeat the same limitations as recited in Claims 6 and 15, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/10/26 as to the newly-amended claims have been considered but are moot due to the new rejection based on the references cited above, as well as the newly cited portions of the references previously presented.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/26 as to the previously-presented claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims were previously indicated as allowable over Strole, and thus the subsequent Non-Final Rejection dated 10/17/25 is not proper. Rem 8.
Examiner notes the reopening of examination was to address the previous indication of allowability, and as such, the rejection is proper.
Applicant also argues the subsequent Office Action should not be made final due to the citation to Strole as US “2010007067” rather than “2010/0077067.”
Examiner notes this is simply a clear typographical error, and since the correct inventor name “Strole” was provided and was previously cited, the typographical error did not appear to cause any confusion to the Applicant.
Applicant further argues against a form paragraph regarding interpretation under the AIA , stating the application should only be subject to interpretation under AIA . Rem. 8.
It is unclear to which paragraph Applicant is referring, as the second paragraph of section 2 of the Office Action notes, “The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .” Non-Final Rej. 2. That is, the application was not interpreted under pre-AIA nor was there any indication of such an interpretation.
Applicant further argues a port status record does not teach a log page, and that Strole simply generates a response to a query based on port status records. Rem. 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to the initial argument, Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a log page is simply a record, and as such, a port record would disclose such a log page. The Specification as filed does provide for a “Log Page” and “Discover Log Page,” which appear to reference specific terminology. However, neither types of “Log Page” are present in the claims, and only a generic “log page” is required.
Additionally, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and accompanying paragraph 34 of Strole, “the port status record is maintained by either the intermediate Layer 2 device 20A or the intermediate proxy device 40.” That is, the port status record is not simply a response, as argued by Applicant, but a record (i.e. log page).
Applicant further argues the change log of Augenstein does not teach a log page as recited in the claim. Rem. 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As with Strole, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a log page is simply a record. A change log, which is a log of changes made, is a log in itself, and thus, reasonably interpreted as a log page.
Applicant also argues, regarding Claim 9, the data restoration of Augenstein used to create the change log is not part of a discovery process as described in Claim 8 and thus does not teach the first device as a software device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In addressing Claim 9, the rejection relies upon Augenstein to teach a device being a software device. Examiner notes Applicant appear to be arguing against the references individually, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Augenstein is not relied upon to teach any features or functionalities of the device beyond what is relied upon in Claim 9. Rather, Claim 8 relies upon Strole and Chambliss for such teachings.
Applicant further argues, regarding Claim 10, Augenstein is not relevant in the discovery process and thus does not teach the second device is a storage software device. Rem. 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As with Claim 9, Examiner notes Applicant appear to be arguing against the references individually, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Augenstein is not relied upon to teach any features or functionalities of the device beyond what is relied upon in Claim 10. Rather, Claim 8 relies upon Strole and Chambliss for such teachings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights