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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues generally that the claims are directed to a practical application rather than an abstract idea. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons stated in the previous rejection. The amendments do nothing to change the nature of the “providing” and “performing” steps and so that analysis still applies.
Applicant also generally argues that Swierk does not teach the claims as amended. These arguments are unpersuasive because the claims are written very broadly such that they are taught by the cited references.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
• Yes, the limitations “performing a firmware diagnostics operation” and “performing a context aware collaborative platform diagnostics operation” are so broad that they could encompass making a determination and therefore are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
• Yes, the limitation “performing a firmware diagnostics operation” and “performing a context aware collaborative platform diagnostics operation” are so broad that it could encompass the abstract idea of a performing a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
• No, the limitation “providing. . .” could simply refer to transmitting data which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). “performing a context aware collaborative platform diagnostics operation” could also simply refer to transmitting data.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
• No, the limitation “Providing” and “performing a context aware collaborative platform diagnostics operation” that could refer to transmitting data and so are an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 2-6 are simply wherein clauses that describe data, where/how types of data is stored, recite generic computing components, but they do not alter the process of claim 1 or alter its nature as an abstract idea. At best they amount to applying the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1)) or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Claims 7 and 13 add a computing context to the process steps of claim 1, but this simply amounts to applying the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1)) or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Claims 8-12 and 14-19 are simply wherein clauses that describe data, where/how types of data is stored, recite generic computing components, but they do not alter the process of claim 1 or alter its nature as an abstract idea. At best they amount to applying the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1)) or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Claim 20 may be interpreted as merely transmitting data (see above analysis). Transmitting data is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swierk (US 20160371163 A1).
As to claim 7, Swierk teaches a system comprising:
a processor;
a data bus coupled to the processor; and
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium being coupled to the data bus (see Fig. 2 and corresponding text), the computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations and comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for:
providing an information handling system with a distributed BIOS (see Fig. 2, 3, and throughout, disclosing a BIOS) the distributed BIOS including a plurality of BIOS components (see paragraph 0048 disclosing a variety of applications in the BIOS) and a plurality of BIOS variables (see paragraph 0046, disclosing the BIOS receiving support parameters; also see paragraph 0028 disclosing quick response codes and paragraph 0066, disclosing IP address), the distributed BIOS being implemented to function with any of a plurality of processor environments (see paragraph 0025, disclosing that a BIOS can operate in a degraded state; examiner interprets this is in addition to a non-degraded state);
performing a firmware diagnostics operation via the distributed BIOS (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0120, disclosing performing firmware diagnostics); and,
performing a context aware collaborative platform diagnostics operation, the context aware collaborative platform diagnostics operation using the firmware diagnostics operation and an operating system diagnostics operation to provide a collaborative diagnostic operation, the firmware diagnostics operation and the operating system diagnostics operation operating independently, the firmware diagnostics operation and the operating system diagnostics operation sharing diagnostic information (see paragraphs 0120-0122 and Fig. 6, disclosing running firmware diagnostics storing its results, and using those results to perform service OS based diagnostics; also see Fig. 7 and corresponding text and throughout, disclosing the separate (independent) OS and firmware based diagnostic stages) the diagnostic information including device related diagnostic information, the device related diagnostic information being stored within a transient capsule module of the information handling system (see paragraphs 0120-0122 and Fig. 6 and throughout, disclosing running firmware diagnostics for a client device, storing its results, and using those results to perform service OS based diagnostics) , the device related diagnostic information being specific to when a component of the information handling system is executing a particular workload (see paragraph 01201-0122, disclosing initiating executing firmware based diagnostics [workload] and storing the results and that the firmware based diagnostics cvan be executed by a processor [a component of the IHS executing the workload]).
As to claim 8, the references teach claim 7 as detailed above. Swierk further teaches the diagnostic information includes context aware diagnostics information (see paragraphs 0120-0122 and Fig. 6, disclosing running firmware diagnostics storing its results, and using those results to perform service OS based diagnostics; also see Fig. 7 and corresponding text).
As to claim 9, the references teach claim 7 as detailed above. Swierk further teaches the transient capsule module comprises a common storage location accessible by the firmware diagnostics operation and the operating system diagnostics operation, the common storage location storing the device related diagnostic information (see Fig. 6, 7, and associated text regarding who the test results are shared between diagnostics stages); and, the firmware diagnostics operation and the operating system diagnostics operation communicate with the transient capsule module when sharing the diagnostic information (see paragraphs 0120-0122 and Fig. 6, disclosing running firmware diagnostics storing its results in memory, and using those results to perform service OS based diagnostics; also see Fig. 7 and corresponding text disclosing sharing health data at each stage of diagnostics by storing it in memory and that later stages use results from a previous stage).
As to claim 1-3, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claims 7-9because they are substantially equivalent.
As to claim 13-15 they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claims 7-9 because they are substantially equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierk in view of Durham (US 20080022129 A1).
As to claim 10, the refences teach claim 9 as referenced above. They further teach an embedded controller (see paragraph 0037 of Swierk and paragraph 0040 of Durham);
Swierk does not explicitly teach the embedded controller provides a root of trust; and, the root of trust secures the diagnostics information stored within the transient capsule module.
However, Durham teaches securely storing data as data blobs (see paragraph 0062 and throughout).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Swierk with the methods of Durham because it enables protection of information so only properly identified components and agents can access them (see paragraph 0062).
As to claim 11, the refences teach claim 9 as referenced above. Swierk does not explicitly teach the diagnostics information is stored within the transient capsule module as a blob.
However, Durham teaches securely storing data as secure data blobs (see paragraph 0062 and throughout).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Swierk with the methods of Durham because it enables protection of information so only properly identified components and agents can access them (see paragraph 0062).
As to claim 12, the refences teach claim 12 as referenced above. Swierk does not explicitly teach the blob is secured and stored as a secure embedded transient capsule entry.
However, Durham teaches securely storing data as secure data blobs (see paragraph 0062 and 0024).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Swierk with the methods of Durham because it enables protection of information so only properly identified components and agents can access them (see paragraph 0062).
As to claims 4-6, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claims 10-12 because they are substantially equivalent.
As to claim 16-18, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claims 10-12 because they are substantially equivalent.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierk in view of Vidyadhara (US 20230012979 A1).
As to claim 19, the references teach claim 13 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location.
However, Vidyadhara teaches downloading firmware and OS components (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Swierk with the methods of Vidyadhara because in enables quick use of advanced diagnostics (see paragraph 0003).
As to claim 20, the references teach claim 13 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis.However Vidyadhara teaches downloading firmware and OS components when needing to resolve and detect errors (see abstract and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Swierk with the methods of Vidyadhara because in enables quick use of advanced diagnostics (see paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10838785 B2.
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 JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights