DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on June 8, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 11, and 20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 8, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated March 11, 2026 have been fully considered.
The amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of the independent claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 11-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20240143305 A1), hereinafter, Gupta, in view of Shtalenkov et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220100840 A1), hereinafter, Shtalenkov.
Regarding claim 1:
Gupta teaches:
An information handling system, comprising (Fig. 3 shows IHS 380 (information handling system)):
a processor (Fig. 1 shows CPU 182 (processor) of a host 180. Fig. 3 shows the host 180 in the IHS 380);
a management device (Fig. 3 shows BMC 102 (management device)); and
a first managed device, wherein the first managed device is coupled to the processor by a first data communication interface, and wherein the management device instantiates a first management fabric to extend a management environment of the information handling system to the first managed device to manage the first managed device via the first management fabric (Fig. 3 shows component device 319 (first managed device) wherein the component device 319 is coupled to the CPU 182 of the host 180 via a data communication interface and wherein the BMC 102 manages the component device 317 via a management endpoint 309 (first management fabric). Paragraphs 0037, 0040, and 0043 disclose the BMC 102 manages the component devices); and
a second managed device, wherein the second managed device is coupled to the processor by a second data communication interface different from the first data communication interface, wherein the management device instantiates a second management fabric different from the first management fabric, the second management fabric extending the management environment to the second managed device, [[wherein the management device is a root of trust to authenticate the second managed device and the second management fabric]], and wherein the management device manages the second managed device via the second management fabric by encapsulating protocol information to the second managed device within data transactions native to the second data communication interface. (Fig. 3 shows component device 316 (second managed device) wherein the component device 316 is coupled to the CPU 182 of the host 180 via VLAN (second data communication interface) different data communication interface of the component device 319 and wherein the BMC 102 manages the component device 316 via a management endpoint 306 (second management fabric) different from the management endpoint 309 as explained in paragraph 0041. Fig. 3 shows the BMC 102 uses REDFISH protocol to manage the component device 316-1l. Also see paragraphs 0050 and 0052 discussing discovery of native protocols for respective management endpoints).
Gupta does not teach wherein the management device is a root of trust to authenticate the second managed device and the second management fabric.
Shtalenkov discloses wherein the management device is a root of trust to authenticate the second managed device and the second management fabric (paragraph 0053 discloses a BMC acting as root of trust to authenticate other devices ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta to incorporate the teaching of Shtalenkov about BMC acting as root of trust to authenticate other devices. One would be motivated to do that to that enhance the credibility of the authenticating device (see paragraph 0015 of Shtalenkov).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gupta does not teach wherein, in managing the second managed device, the management device is configured to authenticate the second managed device via the second management fabric.
Shtalenkov discloses wherein, in managing the second managed device, the management device is configured to authenticate the second managed device via the second management fabric (paragraph 0053 a BMC authenticating other devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta to incorporate the teaching of Shtalenkov about BMC authenticating other devices. One would be motivated to do that to enhance the security of the system (see paragraph 0015 of Shtalenkov).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Gupta further teaches wherein, in managing the second managed device, the management device is further configured to manage at least one of a device sleep-state, a device power-state, a firmware update, and a custom device state on the second managed device via the second management fabric (paragraph 0037 discloses managing voltage level).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gupta further teaches wherein the first managed device is an internal peripheral device of the information handling system (paragraph 0043 discloses the component device 319 is internal to the IHS 380 as stated “The host computer 180 includes a component device(s) 319.”. Paragraph 0029 discloses the component devices can be peripheral devices ).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach all the limitations of claim 6 as shown above.
Gupta further teaches wherein the second managed device is a remote peripheral device of the information handling system (Fig. 3 shows the component device 316 is remote peripheral of the IHS 380).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gupta further teaches wherein the management device is instantiated by the processor (paragraph 0041 discloses the BMC 102 in the same Information handling system).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gupta further teaches wherein the management device operates out of band from the processor (paragraph 0039 discloses the BMC operates out of band from the CPU 182 as stated “The BMC 102 may be in communication with a communication network 170 (e.g., a local area network (LAN)). In this example, the BMC 102 may be in communication with the communication network 170 through the network interface card 119. Further, the communication network 170 may be isolated from the data network 172 and may be out-of-band to the data network 172”).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach all the limitations of claim 9 as shown above.
Gupta further teaches wherein the management device includes a baseboard management controller (Fig. 1 shows the BMC 102).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
Gupta teaches:
An information handling system, comprising (Fig. 3 shows IHS 380 (information handling system)):
a processor (Fig. 1 shows CPU 182 (processor) of a host 180. Fig. 3 shows the host 180 in the IHS 380);
a first managed device coupled to the processor by a first data communication interface (Fig. 3 shows component device 319 (first managed device) wherein the component device 319 is coupled to the CPU 182 of the host 180 via a data communication interface); and
a second managed device coupled to the processor by a second data communication interface different from the first data communication interface; and a management device configured to instantiate a first management fabric on the first data communication interface, to instantiate a second management fabric on the second data communication interface, [[to establish a root of trust to authenticate the second managed device and the second management fabric]], to manage the first managed device via the first management fabric, and to manage the second managed device via the second management fabric, wherein the second management fabric encapsulates protocol information to the second managed device within data transactions native to the second data communication interface (Fig. 3 shows BMC 102 (management device) and component device 316 (second managed device) coupled to the CPU 182 of the host 180 via VLAN (second data communication interface) different data communication interface of the component device 319 and wherein the BMC 102 manages the component device 316 via a management endpoint 306 (second management fabric) different from the management endpoint 309 as explained in paragraph 0041. Paragraphs 0037, 0040, and 0043 disclose the BMC 102 manages the component devices. Paragraph 0041 discloses the BMC 102 in the same Information handling system).
Gupta does not teach to establish a root of trust to authenticate the second managed device and the second management fabric.
Shtalenkov discloses to establish a root of trust to authenticate the second managed device and the second management fabric (paragraph 0053 discloses a BMC acting as root of trust to authenticate other devices ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta to incorporate the teaching of Shtalenkov about BMC acting as root of trust to authenticate other devices. One would be motivated to do that to that enhance the credibility of the authenticating device (see paragraph 0015 of Shtalenkov).
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Shtalenkov and further in view of Gupta et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220114066 A1), hereinafter,Gupta-2.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov teach teach all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Gupta does not teach wherein in managing the second managed device, the management device is further configured to perform an optimization operation on the second managed device via the second management fabric.
Gupta-2 teaches wherein in managing the second managed device, the management device is further configured to perform an optimization operation on the second managed device via the second management fabric (paragraph 0044 discloses BMC optimizes of power and cooling adjustments for high-performance operation of hardware devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta to incorporate the teaching of Gupta-2 about BMC optimizes of power and cooling adjustments. One would be motivated to do that to improve the efficiency of the managed device by optimally controlling the hardware devices (see paragraph 0003 and 0013 of
Gupta-2).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Shtalenkov and Gupta-2 teach all the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Gupta does not teach wherein in performing the optimization operation, the management device is further configured to optimize the second managed device for at least one of low-power operation, high-performance operation, battery-longevity operation, and low-acoustics operation.
Gupta-2 teaches wherein in performing the optimization operation, the management device is further configured to optimize the second managed device for at least one of low-power operation, high-performance operation, battery-longevity operation, and low-acoustics operation (paragraph 0044 discloses BMC optimizes of power and cooling adjustments for high-performance operation of hardware devices. Also see paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta to incorporate the teaching of Gupta-2 about BMC optimizes of power and cooling adjustments. One would be motivated to do that to improve the efficiency of the managed device by optimally controlling the hardware devices (see paragraph 0003 and 0013 of Gupta-2).
Claim 14 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed towards a method performed by the information handling system of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
June 24, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights