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 .
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) 1-2,4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setty (US 11210150 B1), in view of Nachtigall (US 20080104417 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Setty teaches:
An apparatus (Setty, Fig. 2, 200. Col. 5, line 28-32, In an embodiment, the infrastructure manager system 212 may be provided by the IHS 100 discussed above with reference to FIG. 1, and/or may include some or all of the components of the IHS 100) comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor (Setty, Fig. 1, 102) coupled to a memory; (Setty, Fig. 1, 114)
the at least one processing device being configured: to collect configuration data (Setty, Col. 6, line 23-31, The chassis 302 may also house a storage system (not illustrated, but which may include the storage 108 discussed above with reference to FIG. 1) that is coupled to the management controller device 304 (e.g., via a coupling between the storage system and the management controller device 304) and that includes a management controller database 306 that is configured to store component dependency information 306a) for a modular server comprising a chassis, (Setty, Col. 3, line 50-56, For example, an information handling system may be a ... server (e.g., blade server or rack server)... Col. 4, line 22-23, In an embodiment, a chassis 116 houses some or all of the components of IHS 100.)
a plurality of hardware components installed in the chassis, (Setty, Col. 3, line 56-60, The information handling system may include random access memory (RAM), one or more processing resources such as a central processing unit (CPU) or hardware or software control logic, ROM, and/or other types of nonvolatile memory.)
wherein the plurality of hardware components comprise at least a first input-output module and a second input-output module; (Setty, Col. 3, line 60-65, Additional components of the information handling system may include one or more disk drives, one or more network ports for communicating with external devices as well as various input and output (I/O) devices, such as a keyboard, a mouse, touchscreen and/or a video display.)
to store the collected configuration data as a backup data set; (Setty, Col. 9, line 25-35, Furthermore, the component dependency information provided by the cloud infrastructure system vendors/providers may be supplemented with more detail to provide and/or enhance a component dependency matrix provided by the component dependency information, with information from the hardware and software stack combined to create the metadata template discussed above that may include configuration data, settings data, and/or other data utilized with the hardware and/or software components to provide the cloud infrastructure functionailty.)
to determine a failure (Setty, Fig. 5, 504. Col. 14, line 4-6, For example, in the event a predicted failure alert for a NIC in the computing device 300 was received at block 504) of one or more of the first input-output module and the second input-output module; (Setty, Col. 10, line 30-36, For example, some of the embodiments discussed below describe how the component dependency information may identify port configurations on the TOR switch device 204 that are dependent on their attached NICs included in the server computing devices 202a to allow those server computing devices 202a to communicate via the network 206.)
and to restore the configuration data for the modular server using the backup data set in response to the determined failure. (Setty, Col. 16, line 24-33, As such, the restoration operations 804 may include restoring configurations, settings, and/or other data on the components in the infrastructure devices 202 that provide the cloud infrastructure system in one instance such that those configurations, settings, and/or other data are consistent across the different components in the infrastructure devices 202 that provide the cloud infrastructure system in the state it operated in immediately prior to the backup operations performed at blocks 508.)
Setty does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to encrypt the backup data set using a chassis cryptographic key in conjunction with a user-provided data item;
However, Nachtigall teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to encrypt the backup data set using a chassis cryptographic key in conjunction with a user-provided data item;
(Nachtigall, abstract, there is disclosed a system and method for file encryption and decryption. In an embodiment, a method of encrypting a file on backup media involves encrypting clear data using a data encryption key applied to a data encryption algorithm and outputting encrypted data. Fig. 3, 314+312, [0039] An order originating from Party A's system 310 may include Party A's digital signature 312 and the order data 302 may be encrypted using Party A's private key 314. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine backup data set from Setty with encryption such data using a data encryption key as taught by Nachtigall, because files stored on these media may contain highly sensitive information such as customer names, addresses, bank account numbers, account balances, etc. and may need to be protected from unauthorized access. (Nachtigall, [0003])
Regarding claim 2, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the modular server further comprises a plurality of storage devices (Setty, Fig. 2, 202c) and a plurality of compute devices, (Setty, Fig. 2, 202a, 202b)
and wherein the configuration data comprises mapping data indicative of one or more assignments of one or more of the plurality of storage devices to one or more of the plurality of compute devices. (Setty, Col. 9, line 16-25, For example, cloud infrastructure system vendors/providers may generate the component dependency information for cloud infrastructure hardware and/or software (e.g., the ASURE® stack hub provided by MICROSOFT® Corporation of Redmond, Wash., United States; a Virtual Storage Area Network (VSAN) available from VMWARE® of Palo Alto, Calif., United States; VXRAIL® available from DELL® Inc. of Round Rock, Tex., United States; etc.) that identifies and defines dependencies between components provided in a cloud infrastructure system. )
Regarding claim 4, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches :
The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to decrypt the backup data set. (Nachtigall, Abstract, there is disclosed a system and method for file encryption and decryption…the encrypted data may be subsequently decrypted by identifying the reference cryptographic key using the reference cryptographic key name; applying the reference cryptographic key to a key decryption algorithm to decrypt the encrypted data encryption key; and applying the decrypted data encryption key to a data decryption algorithm to decrypt the encrypted data.)
Regarding claim 5, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches :
The apparatus of claim 4 wherein the backup data set is decrypted using the chassis cryptographic key in conjunction with the user-provided data item. (Nachtigall, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, Fig. 3, [0039] Party B's system 320 may receive Party A's encrypted order data 302 and decrypt the order data 302 using Party A's public key 316. Examiner’s note: Fig. 3 teaches using Party A’s public key to decrypt the data which contains A’s digital signature(a user data), Fig. 2A and 2b teaches encrypt/decrypt the data using the same key 202. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine both features as taught by Nachtigall, in order to teach this claim limitation.)
Regarding claim 7, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device (Setty, Fig. 3, 300) is further configured to update the backup data set in response to a change in the configuration data. (Setty, Col. 10, line 41-43, and the component dependency information 306a and 406a may be periodically synchronized as well)
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, 16,
The computer program product of claims 11-12, 14, 16 performs the same method steps as the apparatus of claims 1-2, 4 and 7, and claims 11-12, 14, 16 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-2, 4 and 7
Setty in view of Nachtigall further teaches:
non-transitory processor-readable storage medium (Setty, Fig. 1, 108)
Regarding claims 19-20,
The computer program product of claims 19-20 performs the same method steps as the apparatus of claims 1-2, and claims 19-20 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-2
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setty (US 11210150 B1), in view of Nachtigall (US 20080104417 A1) and TAJIMA (US 20130318215 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches the apparatus as referenced above. Setty in view of Nachtigall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first input-output module and the second input-output module are configured to function as redundant switches connecting at least a portion of the plurality of storage devices and at least a portion of the plurality of compute devices.
However, TAJIMA teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2 wherein the first input-output module and the second input-output module are configured to function as redundant switches (TAJIMA, [0034], The redundant NIC 211 denotes a virtual NIC obtained by putting the NICs 111, 112 installed in the server 101 together into a whole.) connecting at least a portion of the plurality of storage devices (TAJIMA, Fig. 2, 151) and at least a portion of the plurality of compute devices. (TAJIMA, Fig. 2, 111, 112. [0029], In the present embodiment, network interface cards (NIC) 111, 112 are installed as the network devices)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Setty in view of Nachtigall with redundant NICs as taught by TAJIMA, because in the case in which failures occur in the NIC 111, and thus the network access via the NIC 111 becomes unachievable, the redundant NIC 211 keeps the access to the network using the NIC 112. (TAJIMA, [0035])
Regarding claim 13,
The computer program product of claim 13 performs the same method steps as the apparatus of claim 3, and claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 3
Claim(s) 6, 9, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setty (US 11210150 B1), in view of Nachtigall (US 20080104417 A1) and Newstadt (US 8001087 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches the apparatus as referenced above. Setty in view of Nachtigall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to enable selective inclusion or exclusion of sensitive data from the backup data set.
However, Newstadt teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to enable selective inclusion or exclusion of sensitive data from the backup data set. (Newstadt, Col. 2, line 11-13, FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system for performing selective backup operations based on file history data, according to one embodiment of the present invention.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Setty in view of Nachtigall with the selective backup taught by Newstadt, because the business rule indicates whether a file should be included in a backup operation (Newstadt, Col. 1, line 55-56)
Regarding claim 9, Setty in view of Nachtigall and Newstadt teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to enable selection of portions of the backup data set to be restored. (Newstadt, Col. 2, line 44-47, The components in FIG. 1 can perform backups, full restores from backups, and selective restores of individual files from backups.)
Regarding claims 15, 18
The computer program product of claims 15, 18 performs the same method steps as the apparatus of claims 6 and 9, and claims 15, 18 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 6 and 9
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setty (US 11210150 B1), in view of Nachtigall (US 20080104417 A1) and ERUKULLA (US 20230315574 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches the apparatus as referenced above. Setty in view of Nachtigall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to validate the backup data set prior to using the backup data set to restore the configuration data for the modular server.
However, ERUKULLA teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to validate the backup data set prior to using the backup data set to restore the configuration data for the modular server. (ERUKULLA, [0070], In an embodiment, actions performed during the LN restore process include (a) validate and download backup)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Setty in view of Nachtigall with the backup validation taught by ERUKULLA, to make sure that the backup configuration data includes all the files needed to properly execute a restore operation on the LNMCs being deployed to the backup state of the previous LNMCs when the backup configuration data was created. (ERUKULLA, [0071])
Regarding claim 17,
The computer program product of claim 17 performs the same method steps as the apparatus of claim 8, and claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 8
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setty (US 11210150 B1), in view of Nachtigall (US 20080104417 A1) and Gao (US 20140181496 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches the apparatus as referenced above. Setty in view of Nachtigall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the modular server further comprises a restore serial peripheral interface module configured to store the backup data set.
However, Gao teaches:
wherein the modular server further comprises a restore serial peripheral interface module configured to store the backup data set. (Gao, Background [0004], As a result, when a serial peripheral interface (Serial Peripheral Interface, SPI) Flash chip or an inter-integrated circuit bus (Inter-Integrated Circuit, IIC) Flash chip is used as a storage medium, it is required to use two Flash chips to respectively store the primary BIOS and the backup BIOS.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Setty in view of Nachtigall with the SPI flash as storage for backup taught by Gao, since it was shown as a well-known conventional method
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but not persuasive. Setty in view of Nachtigall teaches the amended limitations (see 103 rejection section above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pabón (US 20230342267 A1): An illustrative method includes detecting a request to perform a cluster-wide snapshot of a cluster comprising one or more nodes on which one or more containerized applications are deployed, the snapshot corresponding to a point in time; preparing, based on the request, objects within the cluster for the snapshot; and generating, in response to the preparing, the cluster-wide snapshot of the cluster.
OHTSUJI (US 20230076302 A1): A computer readable recording medium having stored therein a control program that causes a computer to execute a process including: when an application transmits an IO request, determining whether to execute a process before the application receives a completion response of an IO process to the IO request instead of executing the process after the completion response, based on a first and second indicators, the first indicator relating to a performance decline ratio when the process is executed before the completion response, the second indicator relating to a performance decline ratio when a snapshot of a memory region at a time point that the IO request is transmitted is generated, the memory region storing an execution code of the application; and when determining to execute the process before the completion response, generating the snapshot of the memory region, and causing the application to start execution of the process.
DESHPANDE (US 20200285542 A1): Embodiments for optimizing database backups to achieve a Recovery Time Object (RTO). A user-defined RTO configured for one or more databases is received. A backup frequency for initiating backups of the one or more databases is determined based on a continuously predicted recovery time associated with a plurality of factors. The backups of the one or more databases are executed at the determined backup frequency to ensure the user-defined RTO is achieved for the backups of the one or more databases. In some embodiments, a recovery window of the one or more databases may be increased using an RTO-aware tiered or remote storage caching operation for portions of the database, and an RTO-aware re-sharding operation on sharded databases may be performed when the backup frequency exceeds a predetermined threshold such that each shard may be restored within the user-defined RTO.
Balakrishnan (US 20180314458 A1): In an aspect of the disclosure, a method, a computer-readable medium, and an apparatus are provided. The apparatus may be a service processor. The service processor loads a primary copy of a collection of environment variables from a storage device of the service processor. The service processor determines whether the primary copy is integral. The service processor, in response to a determination that the primary copy is not integral: loads a backup copy of the collection of environment variables from the storage device, determines whether the backup copy is integral, and boots an operating system with the collection of environment variables of the backup copy in response to a determination that the backup copy is integral.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINYUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7140. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/XINYUAN YU/Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113