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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to the application filed on 3/10/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
However, the limitation “where updating the firmware comprises” updating switch settings and attribute settings of uplink ports and downlink ports of the plurality of switches to adjust a number of GPUs participating in a calculation, and adjusting an interconnection relationship between the GPUs and the CPUs” as drafted, are functions that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application the additional elements. This claim recites the following additional elements “wherein the testing platform is communicatively connected to a server, the testing platform comprises a testing device, the server comprises a plurality of processing units and a plurality of switches, the plurality of processing units is interconnected to the plurality of switches according to a topological structure, the plurality of processing units comprises Central Processing Units (CPUs) and Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), wherein the GPUs connect to the CPUs through the plurality of switches, the testing device is communicatively connected to the plurality of switches through a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) port or an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) bus interface”, “obtaining an updated topological structure by updating the topological structure via updating firmware of the plurality of switches based on a target firmware upgrade package”, and “generating a test result by controlling the server to perform a target test task corresponding to the updated topology structure”. The additional element “wherein the testing platform…” merely recites generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception. The additional element “obtaining…” do not more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. The additional element “generating…” in the context of this claim is merely an “Apply it" step and as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea of a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the limitations “wherein the testing platform” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, the limitation “obtaining…” have been identified by the courts as mere data gathering which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “generating…” does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it’ to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites insignificant pre-solution activity as “copying” in the context of this claim encompasses merely gathering data generically. Claim 3-4 recite further mental processes in “determining the target firmware upgrade package…”, “determining whether each of the N firmware upgrade packages has been determined…”, and “in response that at least one firmware upgrade package of the N firmware upgrade packages has not been determined as the target firmware upgrade package, determining…”. Further, claim 4 also recites additional elements “obtaining a current updated topological structure…” which encompasses merely gathering data generically and “controlling the server to perform a test task…” which in the context of this claim is merely an “Apply it” step as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea of a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 5 recites “obtaining the N topology information” and “obtaining the N test tasks…” which encompasses merely gather data generically. Claim 6-7 recites further mental steps, as “determines whether a running environment of the server meets a requirement of a test environment” and “evaluating a performance of the server based on the test result”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind. Additionally, claim 6 recites “copying” limitation which is merely gathering data generically. Additionally, claim 7 recites “saving the test result…” limitation which is mere instructions to apply an exception and thus in the context of this claim is merely an “Apply it” step.
Claim set 8- 14 and claim set 15-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim set 1-7 for having similar limitations. Additionally, claim 15 recites non-transitory medium, which merely recites generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 8-10, 12-14, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommers et al (US 20240146599 A1) hereinafter Sommers in view of Wilkinson (US 20170286099 A1) in further view of Sun et al. (CN 111737184 A) hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 1, Sommers discloses
A server testing method, applied to a testing platform, wherein the testing platform is communicatively connected to a server, the testing platform comprises a testing device, the server comprises a plurality of processing units and a plurality of switches, the plurality of processing units is interconnected to the plurality of switches according to a topological structure, and the method comprises: (Sommers Fig 1 and [0015] discloses a topology consisting of a plurality of smartswitches)
Obtaining an updated topological structure by updating the topological structure via “instructions of configuration” of the plurality of switches based on a target “instructions of configuration” (Sommer [0056] and [0059]-[0061] discloses attaching the testing system onto the smart switch and providing cabling instructions and switch rule updating)
and generating a test result by controlling the server to perform a target test task corresponding to the updated topology structure (Sommers [0017] demonstrates systems being improved and then a determination is made of whether the system meets optimized/preferred test objectives. Further, the test system is implemented in a test environment topology. On Sommers [0027], the test system controller sends instructions to the entities, i.e. the server, for controlling a test session. Further on Sommers [0029] after performing one or more test related tasks, there is a collection of test results or related information).
Sommers lacks explicitly
The instructions of configuration are the target firmware package.
Wilkinson teaches
The instructions of configuration are the target firmware package (Wilkinson [0020] discloses performing an upgrade which includes a desired configuration for a switch. The desired software configuration also includes a desired version of software to upgrade the switch, i.e, a target firmware upgrade package. Further, [0023] discloses the version of the software being used on the switch is the latest version of the software. This is shown when the processor compares software versions and chooses the latest one, i.e, picking version 6.2 instead of 5.2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sommers to incorporate the teaching of Wilkinson to “The instructions of configuration are the target firmware package” in order to update the pre-existing topology to the latest firmware, thus improving system security and efficiency.
Sommers in view of Wilkinson lacks explicitly
the plurality of processing units comprises Central Processing Units (CPUs) and Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), wherein the GPUs connect to the CPUs through the plurality of switches, the testing device is communicatively connected to the plurality of switches through a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) port or an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) bus interface,
wherein updating the firmware comprises: updating switch settings and attribute settings of uplink ports and downlink ports of the plurality of switches to adjust a number of GPUs participating in a calculation, and adjusting an interconnection relationship between the GPUs and the CPUs;
Sun teaches
the plurality of processing units comprises Central Processing Units (CPUs) and Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), wherein the GPUs connect to the CPUs through the plurality of switches, the testing device is communicatively connected to the plurality of switches through a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) port or an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) bus interface, (Sun Page 3, Paragraph 4, 6-7, and 9 discloses the CPU and GPU having an interconnected relationship through the PCIe Switch chip. Further, Sun page 4 paragraph 1 discloses, the FPGA sends control instruction packet to the I2C management port of the first PCIe Switch chip and the I2C management port of the second PCIe switch chip, thus demonstrating communication through the I2C port to a plurality of switches. While Sun lacks explicitly the connected device being a testing device, Sommers [0024]-[0025] discloses the test system can be implemented using a testing device. Thus, it would be obvious to combine Sommers’ test system to incorporate the teachings of Sun).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sommers in view of Wilkinson to incorporate the teachings of Sun to add “the plurality of processing units comprises Central Processing Units (CPUs) and Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), wherein the GPUs connect to the CPUs through the plurality of switches, the testing device is communicatively connected to the plurality of switches through a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) port or an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) bus interface,” in order to improve internal communication/connection between the devices.
wherein updating the firmware comprises: updating switch settings and attribute settings of uplink ports and downlink ports of the plurality of switches to adjust a number of GPUs participating in a calculation, and adjusting an interconnection relationship between the GPUs and the CPUs; (Sun Page 6, paragraph 11 discloses a control module obtaining the CPU from the power consumption module, power consumption data of the GPU and then analyzing and processing the data and sends control instructions to the switch chip. According to the result of the data, the control module controls the switch setting and uplink and downlink attribute settings of the PCIe switch chip to realize the adjustment of the number of the GPU participating in the calculation and the adjustment of the GPU through the PCIe Switch chip and the CPU interconnection relationship. This flexibility/adjustment demonstrates the process of updating switch settings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sommers in view of Wilkinson to incorporate the teachings of Sun to “wherein updating the firmware comprises: updating switch settings and attribute settings of uplink ports and downlink ports of the plurality of switches to adjust a number of GPUs participating in a calculation, and adjusting an interconnection relationship between the GPUs and the CPUs” in order to add flexibility and optimization to system by allowing for better management of resource configuration and power consumption in the design.
Regarding claim 2, Sommers discloses
The server testing method according to claim 1,
wherein before updating the firmware of the plurality of switches based on the target firmware upgrade package, the method further comprises: copying test information to the server, the test information comprising N topology information and N test tasks, each topology information of the N topology information corresponding to one test task of the N test tasks, the N being a positive integer greater than or equal to 1. (Sommers [0032] discloses that the test system agent observers original traffic traversing in the environment and obtains the data by making copies of the traffic, traffic portions, metrics, other information from smart switches and entities).
Regarding claim 3, Sommers discloses
The server testing method according to claim 2
Sommers lacks explicitly
wherein before updating the firmware of the plurality of switches based on the target firmware upgrade package, the method further comprises: determining the target firmware upgrade package from N firmware upgrade packages based on a level of a version number corresponding to each of the N firmware upgrade packages.
Wilkinson discloses
wherein before updating the firmware of the plurality of switches based on the target firmware upgrade package, the method further comprises: determining the target firmware upgrade package from N firmware upgrade packages based on a level of a version number corresponding to each of the N firmware upgrade packages. (Wilkinson [0023] discloses multiple software, comparing the software versions, and then picking the software that is the latest version to upgrade the switch. This is shown where there is a difference between versions 6.2 and 5.2, where the system determines to proceed with the 6.2 software as it is the latest version)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sommers to incorporate the teaching of Wilkinson to “wherein before updating the firmware of the plurality of switches based on the target firmware upgrade package, the method further comprises: determining the target firmware upgrade package from N firmware upgrade packages based on a level of a version number corresponding to each of the N firmware upgrade packages” in order to have the latest firmware uploaded onto the switch for more efficient and secure operations.
Regarding claim 5, Sommers discloses
The server testing method according to claim 2, wherein before copying the test information to the server, the method further comprises: obtaining the N topology information; and obtaining the N test tasks by creating one test task corresponding to each of the N topology information in response to user input. (Sommers [0046] discloses after receiving user input, additional details are gathered about the environment, where the information obtained is topology information and test traffic for testing smartswitch)
Regarding claim 6, Sommers discloses
The server testing method according to claim 1,
wherein before the server performs the target test task, the method further comprises: determines whether a running environment of the server meets a requirement of a test environment; and (Sommers [0073] - [0074] discloses that before testing, a placement determination for testing by the agent deployment is made. The agent deployment factors include target system requirements.)
copying an environment configuration tool to the server and installing the environment configuration tool to the server for executing the target test task (Sommers [0082] and [0088]-[0089] discloses installing/configuring the testing agent on the target system).
Sommers lacks explicitly
in response that the running environment of the server does not meet the requirement of the test environment.
Wilkinson teaches
in response that the running environment of the server does not meet the requirement of the test environment. (Wilkinson [0034] – [0036] discloses that upon identifying a difference between software configurations (test environment and test task), the device identifies the corresponding components and determines what should be upgraded. Further, the second topology map has current software configuration which does not match the desired (test) second topology map with the desired software configuration)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sommers to incorporate the teaching of Wilkinson to “in response that the running environment of the server does not meet the requirement of the test environment” in order to ensure that environment will be able to conduct the testing even when the environment was originally incompatible, allowing for more system flexibility and safe guarding against potential errors when attempting to run server tests.
Regarding claim 7, Sommers discloses
The server testing method according to claim 1, wherein after the test result is generated, the method further comprises: saving the testing result; and (Sommers [0070] discloses that after reports are generated by an external test system agent, the results are stored in data storage, demonstrating that the results have been saved).
evaluating a performance of the server based on the test result. (Sommers [0071] discloses that an external test analysis agent or entity uses the data, i.e. the test results, from the various test system agent).
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommers et al (US 20240146599 A1) hereinafter Sommers in view of Wilkinson (US 20170286099 A1) in further view of Sun et al. (CN 111737184 A) hereinafter Sun in further view of Wu et al (US 10263844 B1) herein after Wu.
Regarding claim 4, Sommers in view of Wilkinson in further view of Sun teaches
The server testing method according to claim 3,
obtaining a current updated topological structure by updating current firmware of the plurality of switches based on the current target firmware upgrade package; and (Sommer [0056] and [0059]-[0061] discloses attaching the testing system onto the smart switch and providing cabling instructions and switch rule updating. Further, Wilkinson [0020] discloses performing an upgrade which includes a desired configuration for a switch. The desired software configuration also includes a desired version of software to upgrade the switch, i.e, a target firmware upgrade package. Further, [0023] discloses the version of the software being used on the switch is the latest version of the software. This is shown when the processor compares software versions and chooses the latest one, i.e, picking version 6.2 instead of 5.2).
controlling the server to perform a test task among the N test tasks that is corresponding to the current updated topological structure until the firmware of the plurality of switches are updated based on each of all the N firmware upgrade packages and all of the N test tasks have been performed. (Sommers [0026] and [0027] disclose the test system controller sending instructions to control a test session on the entities, where the TSA in the environment performs various management tasks)
Sommers in view of Wilkinson in further view of Sun lacks explicitly
wherein after the server performs the target test task, the method further comprises: determining whether each of the N firmware upgrade packages has been determined as the target firmware upgrade package;
in response that at least one firmware upgrade package of the N firmware upgrade packages has not been determined as the target firmware upgrade package, determining one of the at least one firmware upgrade package as a current target firmware upgrade package, and
Wu teaches
wherein after the server performs the target test task, the method further comprises: determining whether each of the N firmware upgrade packages has been determined as the target firmware upgrade package; (Wu column 13, lines 46-67 and column 14, lines 1-28 discloses that a determination is made whether processing on all storage devices is complete)
in response that at least one firmware upgrade package of the N firmware upgrade packages has not been determined as the target firmware upgrade package, determining one of the at least one firmware upgrade package as a current target firmware upgrade package, and (Wu column 14, lines 1-28 and fig 4, step 316 discloses that if the determination is made that all devices have not been processed on step 316, return to step 306 where the device is processed. After step 306, step 308 discloses determining the recommend firmware version again).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sommers in view of Wilkinson in further view of Sun to incorporate the teachings of Wu to “wherein after the server performs the target test task, the method further comprises: determining whether each of the N firmware upgrade packages has been determined as the target firmware upgrade package” and “in response that at least one firmware upgrade package of the N firmware upgrade packages has not been determined as the target firmware upgrade package, determining one of the at least one firmware upgrade package as a current target firmware upgrade package, and” in order to ensure the firmware of all the devices have been properly update, and if not, re-running the update, thus providing better testing efficiency and preventing improper firmware from continuing to run.
Regarding claim 11, it’s directed to a system having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Response to Arguments
Response to 101 remarks:
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the newly amended claim 1 specifically the “plurality of processing units” limitation, the examiner would treat this limitation as generic computer components performing computer functions and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more on its own. Even when considered as a whole, the claimed invention still recites mental step in the “determining the target firmware upgrade package…” and “determining whether each of the N firmware upgrade packages has been determined…” limitations of claim 3.
In regards to the newly amended claim 1, specifically the “wherein updating the firmware comprises” limitation, the examiner would treat as an additional mental process, as updating settings and adjusting GPUs participating in a calculation under broadest reasonable interpretation can be done via the mind of a person, even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to 103 remarks:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied or has been combined with an additional reference in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights