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 action is responsive to the Remarks and claim amendment filed August 31, 2026 (“the Amendment”), which is a reply to the non-final Office Action mailed May 29, 2026.
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 9, 14, and 18 have been amended.
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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (“Ma”) (US NO. 12,045,081) in view of Shekar CS et al. (“Shekar”) (US No. 8,122,111) and further view of Lambert (US No. 7,581,133).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Ma and Shekar and Lambert references; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claims 1, 14, 18, Ma discloses an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs (i.e. BMC firmware stored on non-transitory storage), an apparatus and a method comprising: collecting time configuration data from respective ones of a plurality of components of a chassis (as shown in Fig. 2, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Ma discloses the BMC includes a BMC time manager module (processing device) with memory performing time management operations. BMC time manager module communicates with host OS, host devices (i.e., collects time parameters from multiple components). See Claim 1, col. 5:49 thru col. 6:12),
PNG
media_image1.png
813
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the time configuration data comprising respective time zone, time, and date settings (Ma’s collected timestamp data supplies the “time” and “date” settings noted above). But Ma does not expressly disclose that the collected time configuration data includes a “time zone” setting. In the same field of endeavor, namely, chassis-based time management in which a chassis-resident controller distributes time to devices within the same server chassis - Lambert discloses that firmware in a particular device within a server chassis retrieves time from the server chassis and applies an appropriate time zone offset to the time within that device, such that different devices within the chassis can run in different time zones. (See Lambert , figure 3; col. 4-5 (Detailed Description). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s BMC-based collection of host OS and host device time parameters to also collect each device’s time zone offset, as taught by Lambert, because Ma and Lambert are both directed to the identical field of chassis/BMC-based time distribution and synchronization for devices within a server chassis.
PNG
media_image2.png
923
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, consistent with Lambert ’s own express teaching, that tracking each component’s time zone setting alongside its clock and date data would predictably ensure accurately localized time displays and event timestamps across the chassis, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Lambert already performs this function within an analogous chassis/BMC time-distribution architecture;
analyzing the time configuration data to determine whether at least two components of the plurality of components have different time configurations from each other (in Ma, BMC maintains master time parameter and synchronizes subordinate parameters that implicitly detects discrepancy. See Col. 7:10-35);
generating a time configuration profile in response to determining that the at least two components have different time configurations from each other (in Ma, BMC time manager establishes master time parameter as the authoritative time profile. Generation is implicit upon detecting discrepancy. See col. 5:49 thru col. 6:36); the time configuration profile comprising common time configuration data comprising respective time zone, time, and date settings, which is compatible for the plurality of components (Ma’s master time parameter is, by definition, generated to be commonly applied to, and is therefore compatible with, all subordinate components (see col. 5:49 thru col. 6:36), supplying the “common … which is compatible for the plurality of components” language).
Ma does not expressly disclose that this common profile includes a time zone setting. Lambert discloses that the common, chassis-derived time is supplied to devices which each apply a device-specific time zone offset to that same common time source, such that the resulting time configuration - comprising time, date, and time zone - remains compatible with, because consistently derived from, the single chassis time source. See Lambert , figure 3; col. 4-5. Combining Lambert ’s time zone offset teaching with Ma’s common/master time profile, for the reasons discussed above, renders obvious a common time configuration profile comprising time zone, time, and date settings that is compatible for the plurality of components; and
propagating the time configuration profile to the plurality of components, wherein the plurality of components are configured to respectively apply the time configuration profile to synchronize time settings between the plurality of components (in Ma, Claims 1, 9-10: BMC synchronizes subordinate time parameters (host OS time, host device time parameters) to master time (i.e., propagates time configuration so each component applies it). See col. 5:49 thru col. 6:36); wherein the steps of the method are executed by at least one processing device operatively coupled to a memory (in Ma, Claim 1: BMC includes a BMC time manager module (processing device) with memory performing time management operations). But Ma does not expressly disclose the term of chassis for collecting time configuration data and does not explicitly recite comparing to detect differences. In the same field of endeavor, Skedar discloses a method comprising steps executed by at least one processing device operatively coupled to a memory (as shown in Fig. 2, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Skedar discloses Abstract & Col. 3:1-17: Management workstation (processing device + memory) executes configuration management operations);
PNG
media_image3.png
793
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
collecting config data from respective components (in Skedar, Col. 5:1-14: import logic 410 collects configuration information from various subsystems/components. Col. 3:38-53: servers in a farm/data center are managed components); analyzing to determine whether components have different configurations (in Skedar, Col. 6:53 thru col. 7:19: retrieves first configuration (step 510), retrieves second configuration (step 520), compares element-by-element (step 530), detects differences that directly teaches analyzing to determine whether components have different configurations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ma, Shekar, and Lambert because (1) all three references address time and/or configuration management of multiple components within a shared server/chassis hardware environment; (2) Ma and Lambert in particular share the identical chassis/BMC time-distribution architecture, such that Lambert’s time zone offset is a known element applied to Ma’s system according to its own known method, yielding the predictable result of a fully localized, chassis-synchronized time configuration; and (3) Shekar’s proven collect-compare-detect-profile-propagate workflow is readily applicable to Ma’s (as modified by Lambert ) time management scheme to add mismatch detection and structured profile generation across all three time-configuration parameters (time zone, time, and date). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because each reference already independently operates within the same or an analogous chassis/server hardware-management context, such that no more than the application of known techniques to known devices, in the manner in which each already functions, would have been required.
In regard to claims 2, Ma et al. disclose the type of smart devices as wherein the plurality of components comprise two or more of a multi-system management console, an embedded controller, a baseboard management controller and an operating system of at least one host device corresponding to the plurality of components (in Ma, Claims 1, 9: Components include BMC, host OS time parameter, host device time parameters. Col. 7:10-35: the BMC is a baseboard management controller. Host OS maps to operating system of host device).
In regard to claim 3, Ma et al. disclose wherein the baseboard management controller comprises a remote access controller (in Ma, Col. 5:10-48: BMC communicates out-of-band with host system. BMC functions as remote access controller. Dell iDRAC is a well-known remote access controller variant of BMC).
In regard to claim 4, Ma et al. disclose wherein the time configuration data comprises one or more network time protocol settings (in Ma, Claim 2: time source includes NTP resource configured to receive time information from an NTP server. Col. 6:13-36: NTP settings are the configuration data used by the BMC).
In regard to claim 5, Ma et al. disclose the time configuration profile (in Ma, Claim 2: NTP resource is the time source; the master time parameter encapsulates NTP-derived time that profile comprises NTP settings. Col. 6:13-36)
In regard to claims 8, 15, Skedar discloses further: generating one or more notifications identifying the at least two components having different time configurations from each other (in Skedar, Col. 5:3-19: step 550: the differences detected are reported to a user. Reports may be sent as email or generating a notification event at a network management station. Col. 6:27-46: configuration change alerter may detect configuration changes and transmit the current operating configuration to a central management station that directly teaches notifications identifying differing components).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ma and Skedar because (1) both address configuration management of multiple components in a server/data-center environment; (2) both share the objective of ensuring consistent configuration across system components. A POSITA would be motivated to apply the Skedar's proven collect-compare-detect-profile-propagate workflow to Ma's time management system to add mismatch detection and structured profile generation.
In regard to claim 9, Skedar discloses wherein the one or more notifications comprise one or more logs including the time configuration data from the respective ones of a plurality of components (in Skedar, Col. 5:3-53: reports of differences may list configuration elements in plain text format, in XML or HTML, or in CSV. Reports include the actual configuration data (values, keys) from each system (i.e., logs including configuration data from respective components).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ma and Skedar because (1) both address configuration management of multiple components in a server/data-center environment; (2) both share the objective of ensuring consistent configuration across system components. A POSITA would be motivated to apply the Skedar's proven collect-compare-detect-profile-propagate workflow to Ma's time management system to add mismatch detection and structured profile generation.
In regard to claim 10, Ma discloses further: utilizing at least one of a multi-system management user interface, a remote access controller user interface, an embedded controller application programming interface, a multi-system management application programming interface and an operating system event viewer to provide the one or more notifications to at least one user (in Ma, Col. 6:13-36: BMC provides management interface to host system; out-of-band management UI is standard BMC functionality. BMC has user interface for time management).
In regard to claim 11, Skedar discloses further: providing access for at least one user to modify the time configuration profile before propagating the time configuration profile to the plurality of components (in Skedar, Col. 6:47 thru col. 7:15: user interface allows administrator to activate control 772 to reject the change and revert to the generic configuration, activate control 775 to accept the change, or forbid local changes. Control 793 causes configuration to be pushed to remote systems. Manager explicitly modifies/approves profile before propagation what teaches user modification access before propagation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ma and Skedar because (1) both address configuration management of multiple components in a server/data-center environment; (2) both share the objective of ensuring consistent configuration across system components. A POSITA would be motivated to apply the Skedar's proven collect-compare-detect-profile-propagate workflow to Ma's time management system to add mismatch detection and structured profile generation.
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 6-7, 12-13, 16-17, 19-20 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.
6. The Examiner's statement of reasons could be found in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment & Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 6-8, filed August 31, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered.
8. Applicant argues, in substance, that the combination of Ma and Shekar fails to disclose or suggest
(i) collecting time configuration data comprising respective time zone, time, and date settings from a plurality of chassis components;
(ii) analyzing the time configuration data to determine whether at least two components have different time configurations from each other; or
(iii) generating a time configuration profile comprising common time configuration data comprising respective time zone, time, and date settings, which is compatible for the plurality of components.
With respect to point (ii), Applicant’s Remarks do not specifically address the prior Office Action’s citation to Shekar (col. 6:53 thru col. 7:19, Fig. 5) mapping the “analyzing” limitation, but instead restate the claim language without specific technical argument as to why the cited teaching is deficient. A general allegation that the applied references do not teach or suggest a claim limitation, without more, is not considered a persuasive argument. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260 (CCPA 1974); MPEP § 2143.03. This portion of the rejection is accordingly maintained without modification.
With respect to points (i) and (iii), Applicant’s arguments are persuasive to the extent that the previously applied combination of Ma and Shekar does not expressly disclose a “time zone” setting as part of the collected or common time configuration data; the prior Office Action’s citations, upon further review, are directed only to Ma’s collected clock/timestamp data and NTP settings, and do not address time zone specifically. This deficiency has been remedied above through the addition of Lambert, which is directed to the identical field of chassis/BMC-based time distribution and expressly discloses a time zone offset applied to devices within a server chassis. Because Lambert has been introduced specifically to address the newly added claim language and the deficiency raised by Applicant’s arguments, this new ground of rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and this Office Action is properly made FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant’s arguments have therefore been considered but are not persuasive as to the claims as newly rejected above over Ma, Shekar, and Lambert.
Applicant additionally argues that the rejected dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependence from base claims 1, 14, and 18. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to the base claims, from which the rejections of the dependent claims are maintained (and updated, where applicable) as set forth in paragraphs 10-17 above.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 18 are rejected. Claims 6-7, 12-13, 16-17, 19-20 are objected.
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Independent claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended to require, inter alia, that the collected time configuration data and the time configuration profile generated therefrom each comprise “respective time zone, time, and date settings.” This amendment necessitated the Examiner’s introduction, below, of Lambert (U.S. No. 7,581,133) as an additional reference directed to the newly added “time zone” limitation. Because this new evidentiary matter is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, this action is properly made FINAL notwithstanding the introduction of a reference not previously of record. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see hop://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
