This action is in response to the amendments filed on 06/22/2026, in which claims 1, 13 and 19 have been amended, claims 1-20 are presented for the examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LeGoff relies on a BMC rather than the claimed software agent, uses polling rather than the claimed software agent, uses polling rather then autonomous detection and does not discloses the claimed direct communication between PCS, agent and processor. Applicants similarly argue that Venkatraman does not disclose independent software agent or the claimed corrective-action pathway.
These arguments are not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on LeGoff’s BMC as satisfying the claimed agent subsystem. Rather, LeGoff teaches a monitoring operating information of a data-center device and communicating such information for evaluation and corrective action, while Venkatraman teaches an agent associated with monitored devices, collection/evaluation of device health information and initiation of corrective actions. The references are properly considered for their combined teachings and the claim limitations need not be disclosed in identical terminology or by a single reference.
Applicant’s reliance on the BMC is also unpersuasive because the specification does not establish that the claimed invention is fundamentally directed to replacing a BMC with an autonomous agent. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed agent functionality and communication relations would have been suggested by the cited art.
Further, Venkaraman’s disclosure of an agent, monitored device, evaluation of operating conditions, and corrective actions provides a reason to employ agent-based monitoring in the server monitoring architecture of LeGoff. Providing the resulting corrective instruction through the agent to the monitored device processor would have been a predictable implementation of the discloses monitoring and control functions.
Accordingly, the combination of LeGoff and Venkatraman teaches or suggests the claimed monitoring, evaluation and corrective-action functionality and Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed arrangement produces an unexpected result or requires more than predictable modification of the known systems. The § 103 rejection of claim 1 is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation requiring the agent subsystem to be “distinct from a baseboard management controller (BMC)” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification does not discloses a BMC or an agent subsystem being distinct from a BMC. Accordingly, the amendment introduces subject matter not described in the application as originally filed.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Goff et al. (US 2020/0379529, referred herein after Le Goff) in view of Venkatraman et al. (US 2021/0034495, referred herein after Venkatraman).
As per claim 1, 13, 19, Le Goff discloses a system for monitoring, detecting and generating a corrective action in response to receiving real time information from a monitored data center device, the system comprising:
a computer, a memory operably associated with the computer (Fig. 5, [0037], [0038]);
a principal control software PCS subsystem configured to be stored in the memory of the computer and to be accessed by the computer, wherein the computer is used to monitor operation of a data center device ([0060], [0093], [0105], Each server (ie computer) comprises at least one sensor (shown on FIG. 5) that provides measurements related to a parameter of the server 400, [0098]);
the PCS subsystem including pre-defined information for analyzing operating information pertaining to operation of the data center device (Figure 1, reference 130, metric platform, [0093], [0095], Measurements (ie stored operating values) provided by the servers 230 are stored in the metrics cache 130 introduced in the description of FIG. 1.);
the PCS subsystem further being configured to: analyze the operating information received from the agent subsystem using the pre-defined information to determine when a situation exists requiring an action to be taken to modify operation of the data center device; and (Fig. 5, action controller (535) configured to perform analysis of the operating information and transmit the corrective action back to those nodes (servers 400) to manage operation (Fig. 5, [0037], [0038], [0047]);
to use the pre-defined information to determine and transmit a predetermined action directly to the agent subsystem, to be received and used by the agent subsystem, to then communicate with the processor of the data center device, wherein the predetermined action is then used by processor of the data center device to modify operation of the data center device in accordance with the predetermined action (Fig. 5, [0098]-[0100], [0037], [0038], action controller (535) configured to perform analysis of the operating information and transmit the corrective action back to those nodes (servers 400) to manage operation, Agents (servers) are capable to receiving operating measurements from the various sensors).
Le Goff does not disclose an agent subsystem configured to be stored in the memory of the data center device and to communicate with a processor of the data center device, the agent subsystem further being configured to communicate the operating information generated by the data center device, including at least one of the events or alarms associated with the data center device, to the PCS subsystem;
However, Venkatraman discloses an agent subsystem (Fig. 1, agent 140, [0032], [0033]) configured to be stored in the memory of the data center device ([0038], a management server (i e data center device) and to communicate with a processor of the data center device, the agent subsystem further being configured to communicate the operating information generated by the data center device, including at least one of the events or alarms associated with the data center device, to the PCS subsystem (Fig. 1, [0045]-[0047], wherein the data (i e the operating information) from monitored device (i e data center device) is transferred to host device via network 130);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Venkatraman’s method for dynamically updating device health scores and weighting factors into Le Goff’s method for supervising server health because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to continuously monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) and health metrics, which identify issues, predict potential failures, and take proactive measures to mitigate risks before they impact critical business operations.
As per claim 2, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the PCS subsystem is configured to be stored in a non-volatile memory of the computer ([0061], [0087]).
As per claim 3, 14, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer comprises at least one of: a server; a personal computer; a laptop computer; a computing tablet; a smartphone; or a personal digital assistant ([0087]).
As per claim 4, Venkartraman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the agent subsystem comprises a software module configured to be stored in a non-volatile memory of the data center device (Fig. 1, agent 140, [0032], [0033], [0038]).
As per claim 5, 15, 20, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the pre-defined information comprises at least one of: a stored set point; a stored operating value; a stored rule; or a stored algorithm; a stored table; a stored chart; or a stored look-up table, for determining when the situation arises for taking the action, and determining the predetermined action to be taken (Fig. 6, step 620, stored measurements, [0012], [0093]).
As per claim 6, 16, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the predetermined action transmitted by the PCS subsystem includes a command to modify operation of a cooling unit ([0021]).
As per claim 7, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the command to modify operation of a cooling unit comprises: a command to increase a cooling output of the cooling unit; or a command to decrease a cooling output of the cooling unit ([0021]).
As per claim 8, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the data center device comprises a server, and the PCS subsystem is configured to communicate bi-directionally via a network with a CPU of the server (Fig. 4, 440, [0103], [0104]).
As per claim 9, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a cooling unit, and wherein the PCS subsystem is configured to communicate bi-directionally via a network with the cooling unit (Fig. 4, 440, [0103], [0104]).
As per claim 10, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a database contained in the memory of the computer and accessible by the PCS subsystem for collecting historical operating information received from the at least one data center device over a period of time (Fig. 5, 520, [0038]).
As per claim 11, 17, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the PCS subsystem is further configured to use the historical operating information stored in the database to further control operation of the at least one data center device ([0012], [0018]).
As per claim 12, 18, Le Goff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the PCS subsystem further includes an auto discovery software subsystem for discovering data center devices ([0105], [0106]).
Conclusion
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 KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights