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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on February 4, 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 February 4, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action dated January 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, in page 6 of the Remarks, “The independent claims as amended recite where a management fabric encapsulates protocol information to a managed device within data transactions native to a data communication interface. The art of record fails to disclose the features of the independent claims as amended and those claims therefore are allowable, as are the claims that depend therefrom.”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagree. Fig. 3 of Gupta shows the BMC 102 uses REDFISH protocol to manage the component device 316-1. Also see paragraphs 0050 and 0052 discussing discovery of native protocols for respective management endpoints
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-10, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20240143305 A1), hereinafter, Gupta.
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 manages the first managed device via a 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, and wherein the management device manages the second managed device via a second management fabric different from the first 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 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).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 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 manage the first managed device via the first management fabric, and to manage the second managed device via the second management fabric (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).
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 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Ponnuru et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20230009470 A1), hereinafter, Ponnuru.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta 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.
Ponnuru teaches wherein, in managing the second managed device, the management device is configured to authenticate the second managed device via the second management fabric (paragraph 0040 discloses authentication between hardware devices 206 and BMC 132).
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 Ponnuru about authentication between hardware devices and BMC. One would be motivated to do that to mitigate potential security vulnerabilities (see paragraph 0023 of Ponnuru).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Gupta in view of Ponnuru 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).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Ponnuru 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 Ponnuru 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 Ponnuru 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
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.
March 7, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444