DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claim rejections based on prior art
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/10/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new interpretation of the cited references based on most recent amendment.
OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 11 and 19, limitation “determining, by the micro-control unit, that the in-band communication path is incapable of controlling the peripheral device based on a lack of operating system support for one or more drivers associated with control of the peripheral device” is confusing because it doesn’t disclose a location of the one or more associated drivers. The limitation is opened to the one or more drivers being at an unknow location. Correction is needed.
As per claims 1, 11 and 19, limitation “sending, by the micro-control unit via the out-of-band communication path and independent of the one or more drivers, a signal directly to the peripheral device that alters the state of the peripheral device in response to determining that the in-band communication path is incapable of controlling the peripheral device and in response to receiving the out-of-band request, the peripheral device including at least one selected from the group consisting of a video sensor, an audio sensor, a display, a printer, and a projector” is grammatically confusing. Correction is needed.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn et al. (US pub. # 2021/0397577), hereinafter, “Kahn”, in view of Chinnici et al. (US pub. # 2012/0105874), hereinafter, “Chinnici”.
2. As per claims 1, 11 and 19, Kahn discloses a method, the method comprising: receiving, at a micro-control unit (BMC 204 of fig. 2) via an out-of-band communication path (path connecting/between stack 212 and I2C/SMBus port 218) (see claim 10 and paragraph 0010 of Kahn, which discloses “in an embodiment, the out-of-band data is received from a management host and the out-of-band data is transmitted to the storage device via an I2C/SMBus”), an out-of-band request indicating a user input from a human interface device (management host 240 of fig. 2) that requests to alter a state of a peripheral device [SSD 210; see paragraph 0035, which discloses “storage devices such as network attached storage devices (e.g., Ethernet solid-state drives, SSDs) may reside on separate networks or separate portions of a network (e.g., separate Ethernet networks)”] [see fig. 2, paragraph 0035 and particular paragraph 0050, which discloses “further, the disclosed systems can be configured to transport first out-of-band information 203 through respective I2C/SMBus ports 218 and 228 of the BMC 204 and the Ethernet SSD 210, respectively. In particular, such out-of-band information 203 can be transmitted from the MCTP binding layer of the stack 212 of the BMC 204 to the MCTP binding 234 layer of the Ethernet SSD 210. Moreover the BMC 204 may be configured to be connected to a management host 240. This management host 240 can transmit various management related information through the BMC 204 to the Ethernet SSD 210 via respective ports (for example, the I2C/SMBus ports 218 and 228)”]; receiving, at a processing device (EBOF processor 206) different from the micro-control unit via an in-band communication path, an in-band request indicating the user input from the human interface device (see claim 4 and paragraph 0008 of Kahn, which discloses “In some embodiments, the management processor includes an Ethernet bunch of flash (EBOF) processor and the management device includes at least one of a baseboard management controller (BMC), a field-programmable array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a processor. In other embodiments, the system further includes a switch, and the management processor routes the in-band data from the management device to a second storage device of the storage devices via the switch. In various embodiments, the switch receives second in-band data from a host and the switch transmits the second in-band data to the storage device. In other embodiments, the host includes a non-volatile memory express over fabric (NVMe-oF) initiator and the storage device includes an NVMe-oF target”); determining, by the micro-control unit, that the in-band communication path is incapable of controlling the peripheral device based on a lack of operating system support (the SSD ignoring a message, as discloses in paragraph 0055, as being equated to not ‘supporting’) for one or more drivers (MCTP over TCP driver, as discloses in paragraph 0041) associated with control of the peripheral device (see paragraph 0055, which discloses “at block 440, the EBOF processor can be configured to send a packet to the network driver with the Ethernet-based solid state storage device as the destination based on the outcome determined at blocks 432 and 434. At block 446, the Ethernet SSD can be configured to receive a message from the EBOF processor through the Ethernet switch 406. At block 448, the Ethernet SSD can be configured to determine whether the received message includes a MCTP over TCP header information 448. If it is determined, at block 448, that the message does not include MCTP over TCP header information, then the Ethernet SSD can ignore the message, as shown in block 450. If it is determined at block 448 that the message includes MCTP over TCP header information than the Ethernet SSD can parse the header information as shown at block 452”. Note, this limitation is confusing because it doesn’t disclose a location of the one or more associated drivers. The limitation is opened to the one or more drivers being at an unknow location); and sending, by the micro-control unit via the out-of-band communication path and independent of the one or more drivers, a signal directly to the peripheral device that alters the state of the peripheral device in response to determining that the in-band communication path is incapable of controlling the peripheral device and in response to receiving the out-of-band request [see fig. 2, paragraph 0035 and particular paragraph 0050, which discloses “further, the disclosed systems can be configured to transport first out-of-band information 203 through respective I2C/SMBus ports 218 and 228 of the BMC 204 and the Ethernet SSD 210, respectively. In particular, such out-of-band information 203 can be transmitted from the MCTP binding layer of the stack 212 of the BMC 204 to the MCTP binding 234 layer of the Ethernet SSD 210. Moreover the BMC 204 may be configured to be connected to a management host 240. This management host 240 can transmit various management related information through the BMC 204 to the Ethernet SSD 210 via respective ports (for example, the I2C/SMBus ports 218 and 228)”. Note, this limitation is grammatically confusing).
Kahn fails to expressly discloses the peripheral device including at least one selected from the group consisting of a video sensor, an audio sensor, a display, a printer, and a projector.
Chinnici discloses the peripheral device including at least one selected from the group consisting of a video sensor (video sensor 39, as discloses in paragraph 0031), an audio sensor (audio sensor 74, as discloses in paragraph 0038), a display (local display 66, as discloses in paragraph 0033), a printer (printer 29, as discloses in paragraph 0068), and a projector (light-transmissive area 126, as discloses in paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chinnici’s teaching of a computer system for controlling a plurality of different peripherals, into Kahn’s teaching of a method including: receiving, via a first port, in-band data from a management device; generating routing information for routing the in-band data to at least one storage device in a chassis; applying the routing information to a header of a packet of data associated with the in-band data; and transmitting, via a second port, the in-band data to the storage device based on the routing information, for the ability/benefit of having a peripheral device such as a scanner for scanning an image-enhanceable product to form an image that is analyzed to produce printing maps or printing information.
3. As per claims 2 and 12, the combination of Kahn and Chinnici discloses “The method of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], wherein the out-of-band request is received via an inter-integrated circuit (see paragraph 0035 and fig. 2).
4. As per claims 3 and 13, Kahn discloses wherein sending the signal via the micro-control unit bypasses a central processing unit (see fig. 2).
5. As per claim 4, Kahn discloses, further comprising: prior to sending the signal via the micro-control unit, determining whether the in-band communication path is functioning properly (see paragraph 0034).
6. As per claims 5 and 15, Chinnici discloses wherein the peripheral device is one or more cameras (digital camera 77) or one or more microphones (see paragraph 0030).
7. As per claims 6 and 16, Kahn discloses, further comprising: reading a state of the peripheral device; comparing the out-of-band request to the read state of the peripheral device; and determining to honor the out-of-band request based on the comparison (see paragraph 0036).
8. As per claims 7 and 17, the combination of Kahn and Chinnici discloses “The method of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], wherein the out-of-band request comprises a request to turn off the one or more cameras or the one or more microphones, and wherein the read state of the one or more cameras or the one or more microphones corresponds to the one or more cameras or the one or more microphones being on (see paragraph 0036 of Chinnici which discloses a 4 way switch to control peripherals and paragraph 0083 of Kahn).
9. As per claims 8 and 18, Kahn discloses wherein the sending a signal to honor the out-of-band request comprises causing a state of the peripheral device to be altered (see paragraph 0083).
10. As per claim 9, Kahn discloses, further comprising causing an indication of the altered state of the peripheral device to be displayed via an output device altered (see paragraph 0083).
11. As per claim 10, Kahn discloses wherein the output device is different than the human interface device and the peripheral device (see fig. 2 and paragraph 0083).
12. As per claim 14, Kahn discloses wherein bypassing the central processing unit avoids using operating system drivers (see fig. 2 and paragraph 0041).
13. As per claim 20, Kahn discloses wherein the out-of-band request is received via an inter-integrated circuit, wherein sending the signal via the micro-control unit bypasses a central processing unit, and wherein prior to sending the signal via the micro-control unit, the set of operations further comprises determining whether an in-band communication path is functioning properly (see paragraph 0034).
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
a(1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have received a final action on the merits.
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 extension fee 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.
b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ernest Unelus whose telephone number is (571) 272-8596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
IMPORTANT NOTE
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Mr. Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached at the following telephone number: Area Code (571) 270-1023.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 http://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).
/Ernest Unelus/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights