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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 04/24/2024, claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0053118, filed 04/24/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims recite an apparatus comprising functional blocks which may be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean merely software modules. Thus, the claims are not limited to a statutory embodiment. For a claim to be qualified as a machine, as in the four categories of invention, the claimed apparatus should clearly define at least one hardware component in order to fall within the meaning of a machine.
Computer programs claimed as “a database” and “a management server” per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See: Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035; MPEP § 2106.01, specifically the Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (1300 O.G. 142 22NOV2005).
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 2 and 8 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 2 contains the trademark/trade name “Redfish API”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an API brand and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The term “a hazardous device” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a hazardous device” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the claim is vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 10-11 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal et al. (2019/0138638) in view of Speeter et al. (2006/0037000).
As per claim 1, Pal et al. teaches an IT asset management system for managing an IT asset including two or more management target servers, comprising: a database for storing data related to the management target servers [Pal et al., paragraph 0196]; and
a management server collecting a hardware-related data and a software-related data from the management target servers, monitoring and managing a status of each management target server [Pal et al., paragraphs 0471 and 0539], and providing various server monitoring information, including management service statistical data and management service reports [Pal et al., paragraphs 0241-0242], to an administrator terminal used by an administrator and a customer terminal requesting the management target server [Pal et al., paragraph 0358].
But Pal et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Speeter et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the management server provides a server configuration automation function in a way where unique setting values of each management target server are stored as a metadata in a SCP (Server configuration profile) [Speeter et al., paragraphs 0028, 0176 and 0221-0230].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pal et al. with Speeter et al. in order to automate data centers by providing application configuration information for servers in a data center.
As per claim 2, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 1, wherein the management server provides the server configuration automation function by using Redfish API [Pal et al., paragraph 0468].
As per claim 3, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 2, wherein the management server distributes SCP to the management target server newly built so that configuration information is applied [Speeter et al., paragraph 0174].
As per claim 5, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 1, wherein the management server collects and stores multi-vendor hardware inventory information from a plurality of registered management target servers [Speeter et al., paragraph 0220].
As per claim 6, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 5, wherein, when there is a firmware update event including an emergency firmware update, the management server performs a firmware update for all the management target servers [Pal et al., paragraph 0463].
As per claim 7, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 1, wherein, when an issue of the fault occurs in any device of the management target server, the management server analyzes logs and patterns, stores the analyzed data and, when the issue of the fault is resolved, classifies devices similar to the relevant device, and performs pre-fault response processing proactively on the classified similar devices [Speeter et al., paragraph 0173].
As per claim 8, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 1, wherein, when a hardware-related issue occurs in the management target server, the management server classifies a similar device with a high probability of occurrence of fault as a hazardous device with reference to the classification table, transmits an alert message about the classified hazardous device, and performs the fault response measures proactively [Pal et al., paragraphs 0167, 0175 and 0184].
As per claim 9, Pal-Speeter teach the IT asset management system according to claim 1, wherein the classification table includes specific criteria for determining the similarity of system devices, including classification of the same class devices, classification of the same CPU devices, classification of the same Memory devices, classification of the same NIC devices, classification of the same Disk devices, classification of the same HBA devices, classification of the same BIOS version devices, classification of the same driver version devices, classification of the same OS devices, and classification of the same firmware version devices [Pal et al., paragraph 0468].
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444