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
1. The office acknowledges the receipt of the following and placed of record in the file: Amendment dated 12/22/2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (“Chauhan”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0081250, Fuller et al. (“Fuller”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0380904 and Jones et al. (“Jones”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0328943.
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Chauhan teaches an Information Handling System (IHS) [Fig-1], comprising:
a controller [para: 0025(baseboard management controller (BMC) included “workstation” or “server”)], wherein the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core (system CPU), causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator [Para: 0006 and 0027(as resource allocation manager 150 parses commands upon execution of firmware by the BMC)]; and
a plurality of devices (devices coupled to node 114, node 116 and node 118 in fig-1) coupled to the controller, wherein each device comprises firmware that, upon execution by a corresponding processing core [Para: 0028(as “one or more programs 144 to be processed by the cluster computing system 110” on devices coupled to the nodes)], causes the corresponding processing core to instantiate a node as part of a firmware framework [Para: 0028 (instantiating nodes 114, 116 and 118 by analyzing operations such as “number of intensive operation” “determine a worker node” or “multiple worker nodes” where the determination is made according to “determine a execution policy”, availability or capacity of memory as stated in para 0022 and 0024, i.e., part of a firmware network)], and
Chauhan does not disclose expressly wherein the orchestrator is configured to translate an Operating System (OS) setting into one or more node settings based at least in part on a location of the IHS.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., translation of OS setting to local node setting), Fuller teaches wherein an orchestrator is configured to translate an Operating System (OS) setting into one or more node settings [Para: 0044(as “operating systems, and application sets for each node of network 222 … configuration information for the nodes may be stored in the node configurations database 210”)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chauhan’s teachings of wherein the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator with Fuller’s teachings of wherein an orchestrator is configured to translate an Operating System (OS) setting into one or more node settings for the purpose of executing commands on a nodes “without a prior knowledge of how node is configured” [Fuller, Para: 0001].
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., automatically update operating system based on location), Jones teaches an orchestrator configuring an operating system based on at least in part on a location of an HIS [Para: 0051-0052(“the operating system has been configured differently based on the location of the computing device”)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chauhan’s teachings of wherein the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator with Jones teachings of an orchestrator configuring an operating system based on at least in part on a location of an HIS for the purpose of allowing a user to perform “at different physical locations to perform different tasks” by automatically reconfiguring an electronic device which avoids human error from manual configuration [Jones, Para: 0002].
Regarding Claim 3, Chauhan teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprises at least one of: a sensor, a sensor hub, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) [Fig-6(CPU 603)], 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 [para: 0024], a Universal Serial Bus (USB) device, a Peripheral Component Interconnect express (PCIe) device, or a Trusted Platform Module (TPM).
Regarding Claim 4, Fuller 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 [Para: 0033 (“operating systems, and application sets for each node of network 222 may be different, and the specific configuration information for the nodes may be stored in the node configurations database 210”)].
Regarding Claim 6, Fuller teaches wherein the OS setting is selected from the group consisting of: a performance persona [Para: 0036(“module 208 may automatically determine one or more target systems or nodes based on the generic task or directive and may determine the respective configurations of the one or more target systems or node”)], a battery persona, and a balanced persona.
Regarding Claim 7, Fuller teaches wherein to translate the OS setting into the one or more node settings, the orchestrator is configured to identify at least a given one of the plurality of nodes associated with the OS setting [Para: 0036(“module 208 may automatically determine one or more target systems or nodes based on the generic task or directive and may determine the respective configurations of the one or more target systems or node”)].
Regarding Claim 8, Chauhan teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to identify the given node based, at least in part, upon a policy nodes 114, 116 and 118 by analyzing operations such as “number of intensive operation” “determine a worker node” or “multiple worker nodes” where the determination is made according to “determine a execution policy”)] or table.
Regarding Claims 9-12, Claims 5 and 9-12 recite orchestrator configured to identify various aspect of given node and corresponding OS settings such as comprising a power setting, display setting or other setting is simply intended of nodes with it’s corresponding OS settings is not given patentable weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teachings of Chauhan and Fuller to utilize various nodes with it’s corresponding OS setting as intended to use based on user requirement in to achieve desired goal.
Regarding Claim 13, Chauhan teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to identify the given node based, at least in part, upon context information selected from the group consisting of: a capability of the given node [Para: 0030(“value of 14 GB for the orchestrator memory weighting parameter (e.g., a total memory requirement for all worker nodes managed by the orchestrator node”)], and an entitlement of the given node or capability.
Regarding Claim 14, Chauhan teaches wherein to identify the given node, the orchestrator may execute an AI/ML model configured to select the given node based, at least in part, upon context information [Para: 0020((machine learning)].
Regarding Claim 15, Chauhan teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to translate the OS setting into the one or more node settings, at least in part, in response to a user-initiated change to the OS setting [Para: 0033(when “suggestion to modify the program to user”)].
Regarding Claim 16, Chauhan teaches wherein the orchestrator is further configured to verify an entitlement associated with at least one of: a given node, or a capability of the given node, at least in part, in response to a change to the OS setting [Para: 0030(“value of 14 GB for the orchestrator memory weighting parameter (e.g., a total memory requirement for all worker nodes managed by the orchestrator node”)].
Regarding Claim 18, since it is directly related to Claims 6 and 8 (according to the Examiner’s interpretation), the supporting rationale of the rejection to Claims 6 and 8 applies equally as well to Claim 18.
4. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan, Fuller and Jones as set forth above (hereinafter “CFJ”) and Bibb JR et al. (“Bibb”), U.S. patent Publication No. 2015/0355911.
Regarding Claim 5, CFJ teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described rejecting Claim 4 above. CFJ does not disclose expressly 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.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., a processor based system including SoC), Bibb teaches a SoC [Para: 0025 (SoC 206)] interconnect comprises at least one of: an Advanced Microcontroller Bus Architecture (AMBA) bus, a QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) bus [Para: 0069(QPI buses)] , or a HyperTransport (HT) bus.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CFJ’s teachings of at least one of the plurality of devices couple to the controller via and USB port with Bibb’s teachings of Soc comprises QPI bus for the purpose of quick transport of data from memory to it’s intended destination in order to have a efficient system.
5. Claim(s) 2 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CFJ as stated above and further in view of Donald M. Bishop (“Bishop”), U.S. patent Publication No. 2007/0226343.
Regarding Claim 2, CFJ teaches wherein a controller comprises an Embedded Controller (EC) or Baseband Management Controller (BMC) [Bibb, Fig-2(BMC 214)]. CFJ does not disclose expressly wherein the location of the HIS is determined using geolocation.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., software setting based on geographic location), Bishop teaches a location of an HIS is determined and configured to update software by determined geolocation [Para: 0024(“devices that are within the geographic boundary 130 may be selected and have software settings updated or changed based on their geographic location”)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CFJ’s teachings of an orchestrator configuring an operating system based on at least in part on a location of an HIS with Bishop’s teachings of a location of an HIS is determined and configured to update software by determined geolocation for the purpose of automatically updating the HIS with different configurations quickly without human intervention where the HIS requiring different configuration based on where the device is installed [Bishop, Para: 0002-0003].
Regarding Claim 19, since it is directly related to Claims 1 and 2 (according to the Examiner’s interpretation), the supporting rationale of the rejection to Claims 1 and 2 applies equally as well to Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, since it is directly related to Claims 8 and 13 (according to the Examiner’s interpretation), the supporting rationale of the rejection to Claims 8 and 13 applies equally as well to Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 and 19 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.
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 MOHAMMED H REHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1412. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00 - 5.00.
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.
/MOHAMMED H REHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176