DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spottswood et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0372560), Jones et al. (U.S. Patent Number 9,182,808), and Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0235853).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, and 13, Spottswood discloses a computer-implementable method (and a system including a processor [Figure 1, item 102], data bus [Figure 1, item 101], and non-transitory computer-readable medium [Figure 1, item 108] embodying computer program code, the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium being coupled to the data bus, the computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations and comprising instructions executable by the processor [paragraph 0026]) for performing a firmware management operation, comprising:
providing an information handling system (Figure 1, item 100) with a distributed basic input output system (BIOS) (Figure 1, item 114, paragraphs 0001 and 0013), the distributed BIOS including a BIOS component (Figure 1, item 116, paragraph 0013), the distributed BIOS being implemented to function with any of a plurality of processor environments, each of the plurality of processing environments implementing a respective processor architecture (paragraph 0011; i.e., the CPU 102 can include any type of microprocessor known in the art; every CPU inherently contains a processing architecture and therefore the distributed BIOS 114 can be implemented to function with any of a plurality of processor environments);
retrieving firmware components (Figure 3, item 308) from a remote network accessible storage location (Figure 3, item 304) using a network communication stack (paragraphs 0012 and 0016);
storing the retrieved firmware components within the distributed BIOS (paragraphs 0017 and 0021; i.e., the firmware components 308 are stored and updated within the memory 114 which contains the BIOS); and,
initializing the information handling system using the firmware components retrieved via the network communications stack (paragraphs 0001 and 0021; i.e., the computer 100 boots using the new firmware components 308).
Spottswood does not expressly disclose a lean network communication stack;
wherein the firmware components are stored within a boot partition of the distributed BIOS; and
the boot partition comprising a boot loader stored within a primary memory partition, the boot partition being implemented to receive, store, manage and provide access to the BIOS component of the distributed BIOS.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., network communications), Jones teaches a lean network communication stack (Figure 2, item 216, Column 6, lines 7-43).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Jones’ teachings of network communications with the teachings of Spottswood, for the purpose of saving power by using only the minimum amount of resources needed to maintain and network connection.
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., computer booting techniques), Li teaches wherein the retrieved firmware components are stored within a boot partition (Figure 4, item 120d, paragraph 0032; i.e., the entirety of the memory shown in the figure is considered equivalent to the claimed “boot partition”) of the distributed BIOS (Figure 1, item 120, paragraphs 0030-0032; i.e., an system firmware update can be received/retrieved from an external host and stored within the boot partition 120d); and
the boot partition comprising a boot loader stored within a primary memory partition (Figure 4, item PTN0, paragraph 0021; i.e., it is the first/primary partition in the memory), the boot partition being implemented to receive, store, manage and provide access to the BIOS component (i.e., the received system firmware update) of the distributed BIOS (paragraphs 0021, 0027, 0030, and 0032; i.e., the boot partition receives the system firmware update, stores it within the partition PTN1-2, manages it by storing it a specific region of memory 120, and provides access to it by allowing the electronic device 100 to load it for booting).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Li’s teachings of computer booting techniques with the teachings of Spottswood, for the purpose of flexibly using different blocks in each of the memory partitions without updating a bootloader of a boot partition, so as to achieve higher memory usage efficiency (see Li, paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claims 2, 8, and 14, Spottswood discloses wherein the firmware components are retrieved using a common internet file system recovery protocol (paragraph 0017).
Regarding Claims 3, 9, and 15, Jones teaches wherein the lean network communications stack comprises a plurality of network communication components, the plurality of network communication components being just sufficient to establish and maintain a communication session with the remote network accessible storage location (Column 6, lines 7-21).
Regarding Claims 6, 12, and 18, Spottswood discloses wherein the retrieving is performed via a firmware recovery operation, the firmware recovery operation securely locating, retrieving, and restoring the firmware components stored in the remote, network-accessible storage location to the boot partition (BP) of the distributed BIOS, the BP being located in an associated storage device (Figure 1, item 114, paragraph 0013) of the information handling system (paragraphs 0012-0013; i.e., the system securely locates, retrieves, and restores the firmware 308 into the boot partition 116, which is located within the storage device 114 [Figure 1]).
Spottswood does not expressly disclose wherein the associated storage device 114 is a Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) storage device (however does state that it is a non-volatile memory). The examiner takes Official Notice that NVMe storage devices were well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used them for the purpose of providing faster speed and lower latency. This is evidenced by the following references that each teach a Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) storage device that comprises a boot partition: Ganesan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0285126 (Figure 1), Grobelny et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0350615) (Figure 1), and Sasidharan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0339888) (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Spottswood discloses wherein the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (paragraph 0017; i.e., a client-server relationship is described; the computer executable instructions would therefore be “deployable” to the client [computer 100 in this context]).
Regarding Claim 20, Spottswood discloses wherein the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (paragraph 0024; i.e., a user may be operating the computer 100 on demand by a service provider [the provider of the computer and network]).
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spottswood, Jones, and Li as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Righi et al. (U.S. Patent Number 10,754,661).
Regarding Claims 4, 10, and 16, Spottswood, Jones, and Li do not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of network communication components includes an optimized Telecommunications Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network protocol stack, a lean secure network protocol (SNP) driver and a lean universal network driver interface (UNDI) network device driver.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., network communications), Righi teaches wherein the plurality of network communication components includes an optimized Telecommunications Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network protocol stack (Figure 1, item 108), a lean secure network protocol (SNP) driver (Figure 1, item 120), and a lean universal network driver interface (UNDI) network device driver (Figure 1, item 118, Column 3, line 55 - Column 4, line 17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Righi’s teachings of network communications with the teachings of Spottswood, Jones, and Li, for the purpose of ensuring the device is capable of communicating with a wider variety of network devices.
Regarding Claims 5, 11, and 17, Spottswood discloses a common internet file system (CIFS) recovery module (paragraph 0017).
Spottswood, Jones, and Li do not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of network communication components includes a managed network protocol (MNP) driver.
In the same field of endeavor, Righi teaches wherein the plurality of network communication components includes a managed network protocol (MNP) driver (Figure 1, item 122, Column 3, line 55 - Column 4, line 17).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 4 applies equally as well to Claims 5, 11, and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a method for retrieving firmware components from a remote network accessible storage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “nowhere within Spottswood, taken alone or in combination is there any disclosure or suggestion of providing an information handling system with a distributed basic input output system (BIOS), the distributed BIOS including a BIOS component, the distributed BIOS being implemented to function with any of a plurality of processor environments, each of the plurality of processing environments implementing a respective processor architecture, as required by claims 1, 7 and 13.” Response, page 7. The examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, Spottswood does in fact disclose the argued feature. Spottswood states that “[t]he CPU 102 can include any type of microprocessor known in the art.” Spottswood, paragraph 0011. Every CPU inherently contains a processing architecture. Therefore, the distributed BIOS 114 can be implemented to function with any of a plurality of processor environments. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s challenge of Official Notice taken in the previous Office action (Response, page 8), the examiner has provided three references in the rejection above to evidence that Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) storage devices were well known in the art. Applicant argues “restoring the firmware components stored in the remote, network-accessible storage location to a boot partition (BP) located in an associated Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) storage device of the information handling system is not well known.” Response, page 8. However, the Official Notice did not allege that all of those features were well known. Rather, the Office action had cited Spottswood to disclose all of the features except a Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) storage device, which as stated above has been evidenced by three references. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 FAISAL M ZAMAN, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175