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 .
This final action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 2/19/2026 (“Amendment”).
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16 have been amended. Claims 6 and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The term a license distribution and management service in claim 1 is interpreted as functions, i.e., obtain licenses that comprises license files from a backend server and distributed the license files to one or more node agents, as the specification describes the license distribution and management service only in terms of functions. In other word, wherein the orchestrator is configured to provide, via a firmware framework, a license distribution and management service configured to obtain licenses that comprise license files from a backend server and distribute the license files to one or more node agents is interpreted as wherein the orchestrator is configured to via a firmware framework obtain licenses that comprise license files from a backend server and distribute the license files to one or more node agents.
The claimed expression of wherein a given node agent in a given node is configured to collect a license file from the license distribution and management service and execute firmware license services in a context of the given node to verify integrity of the license file based at least in part on a signature, store a feature capability key to be unlocked upon verification of the integrity, and upon verification release a configuration command to load and enumerate a capability licensed for use in claim 1 does not have patentable weight as the wherein statement that details a given node agent in a given node is not tied to the orchestrator or the respective processor core functionally.
Claim 16 recitation of wherein, by a firmware license service running in a node that receives a license file, verifying integrity of the license file using a signature, storing a feature capability key to be unlocked upon verification of the integrity, and upon verification releasing a configuration command to load and enumerate a capability licensed for use does not have patentable weight as the claim merely recites the functions of a firmware license service running in a node that receives a license file (i.e., functions of verifying … storing …, and upon verification releasing a configuration command …).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 and 7-15 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.
Per claim 1, the scope of the claim is unclear. Particularly, the claim recites in part wherein the orchestrator is configured to provide, via a firmware framework, a license distribution and management service configured to obtain licenses that comprise license files from a backend server and distribute the license files to one or more node agents configured to run in the plurality of nodes within the firmware framework, without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) of the IHS. The scope of the claim is unclear as it is unclear what is modified by without any involvement by and Operating System (OS) of the IHS.
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 20200257518 (“Liedtke”) in view of US Patent No. 9,614,678 (“Brundridge”).
Per claim 1, Liedtke discloses an Information Handling System (IHS) (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a controller, wherein the controller comprises firmware that, upon execution by a processing core, causes the processing core to instantiate an orchestrator (see Fig. 1; [0013], BMC; [0020], orchestrator or other software; [0021]) wherein the orchestrator functions without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) of the IHS ([0013], BMC use to update; [0020], [0027], BMC; [0053], use of BMC) and
a plurality of devices 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 of a plurality of nodes within a firmware framework, wherein the orchestrator is configured to provide via a firmware framework functions (see Fig. 1; [0020], peripheral device 116-0; [0027]; [0122]).
Liedtke does not specifically teach wherein the orchestrator via a firmware framework provide a license distribution and management service configured to obtain license that comprises license files from a backend sever and distribute the license files to one or more node agents configured to run in the plurality of nodes within the firmware framework.
Brundridge, however, teaches a baseboard management controller (i.e., controller that is independent of any OS of the HIS) and a license management subsystem, i.e., orchestrator, that is configured to obtain and distribute license to one or more node agents configured to run in the plurality of nodes (col. 3, lines 6-20, requesting of license; col. 3, lines 40-45; col. 5, lines 22-30; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the technique of license management to one or more of the plurality of nodes as taught by Brundridge to Liedtke as the combination in order to accommodate devices that may have a different manufacturer that can require a user of the server to acquire a license before using the device (see ‘678: col. 1, lines 29-40).
Brundridge does not particularly teach that the license management function is provided by the orchestrator via a firmware framework. However, as Liedtke generally teaches firmware framework (see [0001], firmware managing device boot operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim to include use of firmware framework as taught by Liedtke as a technique of managing of the license in Brundridge as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result, rendering the claim obvious.
Liedtke/Brundridge does not particularly teach wherein a given node agent in a given node is configured to collect a license file from the license distribution and management service and execute firmware license services in a context of the given node to verify integrity of the license file based at least in part on a signature, store a feature capability key to be unlocked upon verification of the integrity, and upon verification release a configuration command to load and enumerate a capability licensed for use does not have patentable weight as the wherein statement that details a given node agent in a given node is not tied to controller and a plurality of devices coupled to the controller structurally and to the processor core including respective processor core functionally in the claim.
As per claim 2, Liedtke/Brundridge further teaches wherein the controller comprises an Embedded Controller (EC) or Baseband Management Controller (BMC) (Liedtke: [0013])(Brundridge: claim 1).
As per claim 3, Liedtke/Brundridge further 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) (Liedtke: [0027], Board Management Controller (BMC), CPU, CPU socket, network interface, Ethernet controller, storage controller, memory controller, display engine, graphics processing unit (GPU), accelerator device, any peripheral device, and so forth).
As per claims 4 and 5, Liedtke/Brundridge further 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 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 (see Liedtke: [0081], Buses can include physical communication lines, point-to-point connections, bridges, adapters, controllers, or other circuitry or a combination. Buses can include, for example, one or more of a system bus, a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus, a Hyper Transport or industry standard architecture (ISA) bus, a small computer system interface (SCSI) bus, a universal serial bus (USB), or an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard 1394 bus (Firewire)).
As per claim 7, Liedtke/Brundridge further teaches wherein the licenses enable protected or secured capabilities of one or more of the plurality of devices that corresponds to the one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes that receive the licenses (see Brundridge: col. 1, lines 15-30; col. 3, lines 22-27, restriction).
As per claims 8, 12, and 13, Liedtke/Brundridge further teaches wherein the orchestrator is configured to provide, in the firmware framework, one or more orchestration services selected from the group consisting of: a discovery service, a capabilities/interfaces service, a telemetry service, a security service, and a license distribution and management service (claim 8), wherein the capabilities/interfaces service is configured to advertise one or more licensed capabilities or interfaces of one or more orchestrators or nodes to a consumer, and wherein the consumer is configured to invoke the one or more advertised capabilities through one or more advertised interfaces (claim 12), wherein the consumer comprises at least one of: an OS agent or driver, a remote service, a secondary IHS, or a given node (claim 13) (Brundridge: claim 1, license manager subsystem).
As per claim 9, Liedtke/Brundridge teaches wherein the license distribution and management service is configured to obtain and distribute the licenses to the one or more of the plurality of nodes within the firmware framework (Brundridge: claim 1, col. 2, lines 7-15; col. 4, lines 30-31)(Liedtke: [0001]).
As per claim 10, Liedtke/Brundridge teaches wherein the license distribution and management service is configured to collect an inventory of license data sent from the one or more nodes (Brundridge: col. 4, lines 47-52, by disclosing multiple license assigned to the device and allowing the user to delete, Brundridge teaches collecting of inventory of license data set from the one or more nodes).
As per claim 11, Liedtke/Brundridge wherein the license distribution and management service is configured to manage and orchestrates configuration routines across the plurality of nodes (Liedtke: [0020], firmware update).
As per claim 14, Liedtke/Brundridge further teaches wherein a given node of the one or more nodes is configured to: receive a request or command from a consumer invoking one of the licensed capabilities; and determine whether to process the request or command based, at least in part, on an obtained license of the licenses (Brundridge: col. 1, lines 34-39, NIC, bus adaptor, disks, controllers, etc. col. 2, lines 59-61, col. 3, lines 35-39, constraints/permission).
As per claim 15, Liedtke/Brundridge further teaches wherein the determination whether to process the request or command, is based, at least in part, upon context information (Brundridge: col. 1, lines 34-39, NIC, bus adaptor, disks, controllers, etc. col. 2, lines 59-61, col. 3, lines 35-39, constraints such as duration).
Per claim 16, Liedtke discloses a method comprising:
producing, via a controller within an Information Handling System (IHS), an orchestrator of a firmware framework (see Fig. 1; [0001]; [0013], BMC; [0020], orchestrator or other software; [0021]) wherein the orchestrator functions without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) of the IHS ([0013], BMC use to update; [0020], [0027], BMC; [0053], use of BMC);
producing, via a plurality of devices coupled to the controller, a plurality of nodes, wherein each node is configured to communicate with the orchestrator (see Fig. 1; [0020], peripheral device 116-0; [0027]; [0122]); and
enabling the orchestrator without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) of the HIS (see Fig. 1; [0013], BMC; [0020], orchestrator or other software; [0021]) wherein the orchestrator functions without any involvement by any Operating System (OS) of the IHS ([0013], BMC use to update; [0020], [0027], BMC; [0053], use of BMC).
Liedtke does not specifically teach enabling the orchestrator, at least in part via a license service provided by the orchestrator, to obtain and distribute licenses to one or more of the plurality of nodes, wherein the licenses comprise license files, wherein the license service comprises a license distribution and management service, wherein the enabling comprises obtaining the license files from a backend server and distributing the license files to node agents running in the one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes.
Brundridge, however, teaches enabling the orchestrator, at least in part via a license service provided by the orchestrator, to obtain and distribute licenses to one or more of the plurality of nodes, wherein the licenses comprise license files, wherein the license service comprises a license distribution and management service, wherein the enabling comprises obtaining the license files from a backend server and distributing the license files to node agents running in the one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes (col. 3, lines 6-20, requesting of license; col. 3, lines 40-45; col. 5, lines 22-30; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the technique of license management to one or more of the plurality of nodes as taught by Brundridge to Liedtke as the combination in order to accommodate devices that may have a different manufacturer that can require a user of the server to acquire a license before using the device (see ‘678: col. 1, lines 29-40).
Liedtke/Brundridge does not particularly teach wherein, by a firmware license service running in a node that receives a license file, verifying integrity of the license file using a signature, storing a feature capability key to be unlocked upon verification of the integrity, and upon verification releasing a configuration command to load and enumerate a capability licensed for use.
However, the claimed expression does not have patentable weight as the claim merely recites the functions of a firmware license service running in a node that receives a license file (i.e., functions of verifying … storing …, and upon verification releasing a configuration command …) and does not affect the positively recited steps in the claim.
As per claim 17, Liedtke/Brundridge coupling a child device to a parent device; in response to the coupling, producing, via the child device, a child node with respect to a parent node produced by the parent device in the firmware framework; and enabling, at least in part by the orchestrator, the parent device to distribute a license to the child device without any involvement by any OS (Brundridge: Fig. 1, claim 1).
Response to Argument
Double patenting rejection is withdrawn in light of the claim amendment(s).
The applicant’s argument is based on claimed expressions that do not have patentable weight as described above in the claim interpretation section and the 103 section. As such, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Closest prior art of record US 20200257518 discloses an information handling system that utilizes BMC and orchestrator in receiving a firmware update and orchestrating of the installation of the firmware updates unto peripheral devices. The device can request platform to provide the firmware for execution and subject to authentication, is able to save the firmware into its firmware memory and execute the firmware. The disclosure, however, does not specifically teach instantiation of a node of a plurality of nodes within a firmware framework.
Other cited references include:
US 20080183712 discloses a security module that manages authorization of additional computing resources including provisioning license for use by the security module. A baseboard management controller houses the security module;
US 20160246754 discloses baseboard management systems and methods with distributed intelligence for multi-node platforms. An information handling system may include a plurality of modules that includes a plurality of nodes, each nodes including SoC that includes an integrated management controller. BMCs disclosed on a corresponding one of the plurality of modules functions to provide autonomous monitoring and recovery features using the platform management hardware and firmware;
US 20220114068 discloses BMC that load firmware for specific devices as it discovers the devices across a system. The BMC generates, validates, and refines a device tree, and loads and programs device drivers, firmware, and other software as needed to configure and access devices, components, and sub-systems on and/or connected via external connectors to a motherboard. The BMC also functions to control and allocate licenses provided by service providers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights