DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/09/26, for application number 18/754,844 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 16, 19, and 21 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al., US 2019/0377583 A1, in view of Chen et al., US 2014/0215258 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar discloses a method [Fig. 3] comprising:
obtaining a first startup indication for a device, wherein the first startup indication indicates to the device to start a computing device to which the device belongs; selecting, based on the first startup indication, a startup mode; and starting, when the startup mode is a dual-area startup mode, an operating system that is of the device and that is stored in a first storage area, wherein the dual-area startup mode indicates a first startup manner of starting the operating system based on two storage areas that store the operating system, and wherein the two storage areas comprise the first storage area [selector circuit operatively connected to the one or more processors, the first memory device, and the second memory device, wherein the selector circuit is configured to operatively connect either the first memory device or the second memory to the one or more processors based on whether the first security module or the second security module is operatively connected to the one or more processor; first memory storing firmware for booting a first operating system; second memory for storing second firmware for booting a second operating system (the selection signal being the startup indication that also selects the startup mode), par 2, 10].
However, Kumar does not explicitly teach the device being a network device; receiving, by a network device from a cluster management system, a startup indication; and feeding back, from the network device to the cluster management system, a startup response that indicates a startup result of the operating system.
In the analogous art of cluster management, Chen teaches the device being a network device [cluster manager of Fig. 2]; receiving, by a network device from a cluster management system, a startup indication; and feeding back, from the network device to the cluster management system, a startup response that indicates a startup result of the operating system [cluster manager distributes image to install a minimal operative OS, and return OS installation state information to the cluster manager after completion of the installation (i.e. feedback), par 60].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar and Chen before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the network device and indication of a startup as taught by Chen into the method as disclosed by Kumar, to assist in recovery of faulted nodes [Chen, par 16].
Regarding Claim 3, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 1. Kumar discloses the method further comprising further selecting the startup mode based on a preset rule, wherein the preset rule indicates to start the computing device where the network device is located with preference in the dual-area startup mode [startup based on if the security module is connected to the processors, par 2].
Regarding Claim 4, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 1. Kumar discloses the method further comprising wherein the method further comprises: receiving a plurality of startup indications from a cluster management system; selecting the first storage area from the two storage areas in a polling manner, wherein the polling manner indicates to start operating systems in different storage areas, respectively, based on the startup indications and starting the operating system in the first storage area [wherein when the first security module is operatively connected to the one or more processors, the one or more processors are configured to select either the first operating system or the second operating system to boot in response to a selection signal, and when the first security module is not operatively connected to the one or more processors, the one or more processors are configure to boot the second operating system (plurality of startup indications are the selection signals; polling occurs by checking whether the first security module is connected to the one or more processors), par 2].
Regarding Claim 6, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 1. Kumar discloses the method further comprising when the startup result is that startup of the operating system has failed, starting the operating system in a second storage area from the two storage areas [wherein when the first security module is operatively connected to the one or more processors, the one or more processors are configured to select either the first operating system or the second operating system to boot in response to a selection signal, and when the first security module is not operatively connected to the one or more processors, the one or more processors are configure to boot the second operating system, par 2].
Regarding Claim 11, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 1. Kumar discloses the method further comprising managing a status of a dual-area enabling switch that indicates the startup mode, wherein the startup mode is based on the status of the dual-area enabling switch; and starting the operating system of the network device in the dual-area startup mode or startup mode, wherein the single-area startup mode indicates a second startup manner of starting the operating system based on one storage area that stores the operating system [selector circuit operatively connected to the one or more processors, the first memory device, and the second memory device, wherein the selector circuit is configured to operatively connect either the first memory device or the second memory to the one or more processors based on whether the first security module or the second security module is operatively connected to the one or more processor; first memory storing firmware for booting a first operating system; second memory for storing second firmware for booting a second operating system; the selection signal may be part of a signal received from one of a switch (select mode of booting based on which memory is connected to the selector circuit), par 10].
Regarding Claim 12, Kumar discloses a computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium [the first memory device 122 and the second memory device 124 are configured to store information accessible by the processor(s) 110, including instructions that can be executed by the processor(s) 110, par 27]. The remainder of Claim 12 recite limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 13, Kumar discloses a device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute instructions [the first memory device 122 and the second memory device 124 are configured to store information accessible by the processor(s) 110, including instructions that can be executed by the processor(s) 110, par 27]. The remainder of Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 15, 16, and 18, Kumar and Chen disclose the network device according to Claim 13. Claim 15, 16, and 18 repeat the same limitations as recited in Claims 3, 4, and 6, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, Kumar and Chen disclose the network device according to Claim 13. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the network device is a data processing unit (DPU) or an intelligent network interface card.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, the network device being a DPU or intelligent network interface card appears to simply be a design choice, and performs network functions regardless.
Regarding Claim 21, Kumar and Chen disclose the network device according to Claim 20. While Claim 21 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 11 and are rejected accordingly, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a microprocessor unit (MPU) nor a central processing unit (CPU).
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, the processors being an MPU and CPU appears to simply be a design choice, and would perform the processing functions nonetheless.
Claims 2, 7-9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and Chen, and further in view of Suwabe, US 2012/0011494 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 1. While Kumar discloses wherein the first startup indication comprises a startup identifier wherein the startup mode comprises the dual-area startup mode [selector circuit operatively connected to the one or more processors, the first memory device, and the second memory device, wherein the selector circuit is configured to operatively connect either the first memory device or the second memory to the one or more processors based on whether the first security module or the second security module is operatively connected to the one or more processor; first memory storing firmware for booting a first operating system; second memory for storing second firmware for booting a second operating system (the selection signal being the startup indication that also selects the startup mode), par 2, 10], the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the startup mode comprises a single-area startup mode, and wherein the single-area startup mode indicates a second startup manner of starting the operating system based on one storage area that stores the operating system.
In the analogous art of system management, Suwabe teaches wherein the startup mode comprises a single-area startup mode, and wherein the single-area startup mode indicates a second startup manner of starting the operating system based on one storage area that stores the operating system [selecting only one of the regions of Fig. 2 to boot based on normal or update mode, par 36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Chen, and Suwabe before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the selection of startup modes as taught by Suwabe into the method as disclosed by Kumar and Chen, to ensure successful startup of the device [Suwabe, par 5, 6].
Regarding Claim 7, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach obtaining an upgrade indication that indicates to the network device to perform a first upgrade operation; upgrading, in response to the upgrade indication and when the startup mode is the dual-area startup mode, the operating system that is stored in a second storage area from the two storage areas is a standby storage area; and feeding back an upgrade response that indicates an upgrade result of the operating system.
In the analogous art of system management, Suwabe teaches obtaining an upgrade indication that indicates to the network device to perform a first upgrade operation [S401 of update process of Fig. 4]; upgrading, in response to the upgrade indication and when the startup mode is the dual-area startup mode, the operating system that is stored in a second storage area from the two storage areas is a standby storage area [two storage areas, 401 main partition and 402 sub partition contain respective operating systems; at step S402, copy all programs stored in sub partition 401 into main partition 402 (first and second storage areas, respectively); at step 403, update process of programs of main partition 401]; and feeding back an upgrade response that indicates an upgrade result of the operating system [determine whether update was successful at step S407].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Chen, and Suwabe before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the upgrade process as taught by Suwabe into the method as disclosed by Kumar and Chen, to ensure successful startup of the device [Suwabe, par 5, 6].
Regarding Claim 8, Kumar, Chen, and Suwabe disclose the method according to Claim 7. Suwabe further teaches when the operating system in the second storage area is successfully upgraded, performing a second upgrade operation on the operating system in the first storage area [when upgrade is successful at step s407, then proceed to upgrade of main partition program at step S408, Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 9, Kumar, Chen, and Suwabe disclose the method according to Claim 7. Suwabe further teaches when the operating system in the second storage area fails to be upgraded, performing a rollback operation on the operating system in the second storage area [when upgrade is not successful at step S407, then proceed to restore programs at step S409 and S410, Fig. 4].
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, Kumar and Chen disclose the network device according to Claim 13. Claims 14 and 19 recite limitations similar to those of Claims 2 and 7, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and Chen, and further in view of Lee, US 2012/0278603 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Kumar and Chen disclose the method according to Claim 4. While Kumar discloses receiving the first startup indication and a second startup indication from the cluster management system, wherein the startup mode is further based on the second startup indication, wherein the second startup indication indicates to the device to start the computing device where the device is located, and wherein the second startup indication and the first startup indication are adjacent in a time sequence; and starting, when the startup mode is the dual-area startup mode [the operating system that is stored in a second storage area of the network device; first memory storing firmware for booting a first operating system; second memory for storing second firmware for booting a second operating system (the selection signal being the startup indication that also selects the startup mode), par 2, 10], and Chen discloses the device being a network device [cluster manager, Fig. 2], the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the second startup indication and the first startup indication are adjacent in a time sequence; and starting, when the startup mode is the dual-area startup mode, the operating system that is stored in a second storage area of the device.
In the analogous art of boot management, Lee teaches wherein the second startup indication and the first startup indication are adjacent in a time sequence; and starting, when the startup mode is the dual-area startup mode, the operating system that is stored in a second storage area of the device [a display device includes a communication module configured to receive a first booting mode signal and a second booting mode signal, and a controller configured to control booting in a first booting mode, upon receipt of the first booting mode signal and to control booting in a second booting mode, upon receipt of the second booting mode signal (receiving two startup indication signals, the second one after the first one, to boot the system), par 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Chen, and Lee before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the dual startup and startup selection as taught by Lee, into the method as disclosed by Kumar and Chen, to save power by turning off the system if there is no response after a period of time [Lee, par 14].
Regarding Claim 17, Kumar and Chen disclose the network device according to Claim 16. Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 5, and is rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/09/26 have been considered but are moot due to the new rejection based on the references cited above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175