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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the orchestrator is configured to …” in claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,17, 18 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “wherein the orchestrator is configured to …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. According to the disclosure of the specification, the “orchestrator” is a software pe se. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to correspond to the orchestrator. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,17, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamlin et al. (hereinafter Hamlin) (US 20250291763 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As to claim 1, Hamlin teaches an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
a controller [0009: EC or BMC], wherein the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core, causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator [0008: “a controller, where the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core, causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator…”]; and
a plurality of devices [0009: “The plurality of devices comprises at least one of: a sensor, a sensor hub, a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU), an audio Digital Signal Processor (aDSP), a Neural Processing Unit (NPU), a Tensor Processing Unit (TSU), a Neural Network Processor (NNP), an Intelligence Processing Unit (IPU), an Image Signal Processor (ISP), or a Video Processing Unit (VPU), a camera controller, an audio controller, a memory, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) device, a Peripheral Component Interconnect express (PCIe) device, or a Trusted Platform Module (TPM).”] coupled to the controller, wherein each device comprises firmware that, upon execution by a corresponding processing core, causes the corresponding processing core to instantiate a node as part of a firmware framework [0008: “a plurality of devices coupled to the controller, where each device comprises firmware that, upon execution by a corresponding processing core, causes the corresponding processing core to instantiate a node…”], and wherein the orchestrator is configured to service a first node in communication with a second node without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) of the HIS [FIG..6] [0112: “upon execution of firmware 502 to instantiate firmware services 504 and/or exposed services 505, node 303 may provide node services or agent 603 configured to communicate with orchestration services 601 to send and receive control and/or data messages within firmware framework 307.”] [0114: “consumers 304-306 may access orchestration services 601 directly through orchestrator 302, without relying on any host OS of IHS 100.”].
As to claim 2, Hamlin teaches wherein the controller comprises an Embedded Controller (EC) or Baseband Management Controller (BMC) [0009: “ The controller may include an Embedded Controller (EC) or Baseband Management Controller (BMC).”].
As to claim 3, Hamlin teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprises at least one of: a sensor, a sensor hub, a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU), an audio Digital Signal Processor (aDSP), a Neural Processing Unit (NPU), a Tensor Processing Unit (TSU), a Neural Network Processor (NNP), an Intelligence Processing Unit (IPU), an Image Signal Processor (ISP), or a Video Processing Unit (VPU), a camera controller, an audio controller, a memory, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) device, a Peripheral Component Interconnect express (PCIe) device, or a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) [0009: “The plurality of devices comprises at least one of: a sensor, a sensor hub, a Central Processing Unit (CPU)…”].
As to claim 4, Hamlin teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of devices is coupled to the controller via at least one of: a Systems-on-Chip (SoC) interconnect, a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) bus, or a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port [0010: “At least one of the plurality of devices may be coupled to the controller via at least one of: a Systems-on-Chip (SoC) interconnect…”].
As to claim 5, Hamlin teaches wherein the SoC interconnect comprises at least one of: an Advanced Microcontroller Bus Architecture (AMBA) bus, a QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) bus, or a HyperTransport (HT) bus [0010: “The SoC interconnect may include at least one of: an Advanced Microcontroller Bus Architecture (AMBA) bus, a QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) bus, or a HyperTransport (HT) bus.”].
As to claim 6, Hamlin teaches wherein the service comprises a firmware update [0095: “consumers 304-306 may have access to aspects of firmware framework 307 directly through orchestrator 302 (e.g., capabilities module 309, data 310 module, etc.). OS 304, secondary IHS 305, and/or remote service(s) 306 may communicate with orchestrator 302 in band, sideband, or OOB, respectively, to issue commands to selected devices, collect telemetry, update firmware, etc. through firmware framework 307.”] [0230] [0231].
As to claim 7, Hamlin teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to service the first device, at least in part, in response to a determination that the first node is configured to execute firmware having a version older than a later version [0231: “In some cases, with respect to capabilities exposed by a given node, policies module 308 may include access control rules based, at least in part, upon: last date of a firmware update or version of the node”].
As to claim 8, Hamlin teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to service the first device, at least in part, in response to an error message or service request sent by at least one of: the first node, or the second node [0112: “upon execution of firmware 502 to instantiate firmware services 504 and/or exposed services 505, node 303 may provide node services or agent 603 configured to communicate with orchestration services 601 to send and receive control and/or data messages within firmware framework 307.”].
As to claim 9, Hamlin teaches wherein the first node is in communication with the second node on behalf of a third node, and wherein to service the first node, the orchestrator is configured to identify an alternative communication path between the second and third nodes [FIG. 7] [0121: “In some cases, each of protocol stacks 701 may be selected by orchestration services 601 based upon policy and/or context. For example, in situations where multiple protocol stacks may be available for a same inter-node connection, orchestration services 601 may direct each participating node 303 to instantiate a selected protocol stack depending upon the type of node, the present utilization of alternative communication paths, a battery charge level of IHS 100, a location of IHS 100, a security posture of IHS 100, a performance state of IHS 100, or any of the contextual information or state described herein.”].
As to claim 11, Hamlin teaches wherein the alternative communication path is over a different communication bus or protocol than a communication bus or protocol used in the communication between the first node and the second node [0121: “In some cases, each of protocol stacks 701 may be selected by orchestration services 601 based upon policy and/or context. For example, in situations where multiple protocol stacks may be available for a same inter-node connection, orchestration services 601 may direct each participating node 303 to instantiate a selected protocol stack depending upon the type of node, the present utilization of alternative communication paths…”] [The term “alternative” means different path from the original path.].
As to claim 12, Hamlin teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to service the first node, at least in part, while the second and third nodes communicate over the alternative communication path [FIG. 7] [0121: “In some cases, each of protocol stacks 701 may be selected by orchestration services 601 based upon policy and/or context. For example, in situations where multiple protocol stacks may be available for a same inter-node connection, orchestration services 601 may direct each participating node 303 to instantiate a selected protocol stack depending upon the type of node, the present utilization of alternative communication paths, a battery charge level of IHS 100, a location of IHS 100, a security posture of IHS 100, a performance state of IHS 100, or any of the contextual information or state described herein.”].
As to claim 15, Hamlin teaches wherein the alternative communication path is selected based, at least in part, upon context information [0121: “In some cases, each of protocol stacks 701 may be selected by orchestration services 601 based upon policy and/or context. For example, in situations where multiple protocol stacks may be available for a same inter-node connection, orchestration services 601 may direct each participating node 303 to instantiate a selected protocol stack depending upon the type of node, the present utilization of alternative communication paths, a battery charge level of IHS 100, a location of IHS 100, a security posture of IHS 100, a performance state of IHS 100, or any of the contextual information or state described herein.”].
As to claim 16, Hamlin teaches wherein the context information is indicative of at least one of: a location of the IHS, bus traffic, the fourth node’s capabilities and interfaces, or the fourth node’s power state [0121: “In some cases, each of protocol stacks 701 may be selected by orchestration services 601 based upon policy and/or context. For example, in situations where multiple protocol stacks may be available for a same inter-node connection, orchestration services 601 may direct each participating node 303 to instantiate a selected protocol stack depending upon the type of node, the present utilization of alternative communication paths, a battery charge level of IHS 100, a location of IHS 100, a security posture of IHS 100, a performance state of IHS 100, or any of the contextual information or state described herein.”].
As to claim 17, Hamlin teaches a method, comprising:
producing, via a controller, an orchestrator of a firmware framework [0008: “a controller, where the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core, causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator…”]; and
producing, via a plurality of devices [0009: “The plurality of devices comprises at least one of: a sensor, a sensor hub, a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU), an audio Digital Signal Processor (aDSP)…” ] coupled to the controller, a plurality of nodes, wherein the orchestrator is configured to service a first node part of an active communication path between a second and a third node in the firmware framework without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) [FIG. 7] [0112: “upon execution of firmware 502 to instantiate firmware services 504 and/or exposed services 505, node 303 may provide node services or agent 603 configured to communicate with orchestration services 601 to send and receive control and/or data messages within firmware framework 307.”].
As to claim 18, Hamlin teaches wherein to service the first node, the orchestrator is configured to set up an alternative communication path between the second and third nodes, and wherein the alternative communication path is selected based, at least in part, upon context information [FIG. 7] [0121: “In some cases, each of protocol stacks 701 may be selected by orchestration services 601 based upon policy and/or context. For example, in situations where multiple protocol stacks may be available for a same inter-node connection, orchestration services 601 may direct each participating node 303 to instantiate a selected protocol stack depending upon the type of node, the present utilization of alternative communication paths, a battery charge level of IHS 100, a location of IHS 100, a security posture of IHS 100, a performance state of IHS 100, or any of the contextual information or state described herein.”].
As to claim 19, Hamlin teaches an Embedded Controller (EC) integrated into or coupled to a heterogeneous computing platform of an Information Handling System (IHS), the EC comprising:
a processing core distinct from any host processor of the heterogeneous computing platform [0017: “an Embedded Controller (EC) may be integrated into or coupled to a heterogeneous computing platform of an IHS, the EC comprising: a processing core distinct from any host processor of the heterogeneous computing platform”] and
a memory coupled to the processing core, the memory having firmware instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processing core, cause the EC to: produce an orchestrator as part of a firmware framework [0017: “a memory coupled to the processing core, the memory having firmware instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processing core, cause the EC to: produce an orchestrator as part of a firmware framework…”]; and service a first node disposed in a communication path between a second and a third node of the firmware framework without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) [FIG. 7] [FIG..6] [0112: “upon execution of firmware 502 to instantiate firmware services 504 and/or exposed services 505, node 303 may provide node services or agent 603 configured to communicate with orchestration services 601 to send and receive control and/or data messages within firmware framework 307.”] [0114: “consumers 304-306 may access orchestration services 601 directly through orchestrator 302, without relying on any host OS of IHS 100.”].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamlin et al. (hereinafter Hamlin) (US 20250291763 A1) in view of Srivastava et al. (hereinafter Srivastava) (US 20160285757 A1).
As to claim 10, Hamlin does no teach wherein the orchestrator is configured to identify the alternative communication path based at least in part upon a state machine of nodes present in the firmware framework.
Srivastava teaches identifying communication path based upon a state machine on chips [0117: “at step 908, it is determined whether the second communication path should be enabled. This may be determined in any suitable manner. For example, state machines on the first and second chips may determine the communication path should be switched based on information received through the first communication path (e.g., the information may indicate that configuration is complete or that USB data is ready to be transferred) or through other suitable indications.”] [0118].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of determining communication path based upon a state machine as suggested in Srivastava into Hamlin to implement communication path control. On having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to reduce complexity and improve maintainability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome the rejection under 112 (a) and (b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUXING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30PM.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/XUXING CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176