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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/02/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 17 and 20 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 17 and 20 similarly recite “a method of operating a computer system for scaled firmware deployment based on observable health markers, the method comprising: a) discovering a plurality of nodes within a data center; b) clustering the plurality of nodes into groups based on selectable parameters; c) deploying firmware to selected nodes or clusters based on a policy manifest; d) monitoring firmware stability on the selected nodes by collecting device data from each selected node; e) analyzing the collected device data to detect one or more errors; and f) when no errors are detected, deploying the firmware to a larger cluster of nodes according to the policy manifest”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 20 of “a) discovering a plurality of nodes within a data center” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “discovering” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may discover a plurality of nodes within a data center with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 20 of “b) clustering the plurality of nodes into groups based on selectable parameters” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “clustering/grouping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may cluster the plurality of nodes into groups based on selectable parameters with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 20 of “d) monitoring firmware stability on the selected nodes by collecting device data from each selected node” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “monitoring” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may monitor firmware stability on the selected nodes by collecting device data from each selected node with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 20 of “e) analyzing the collected device data to detect one or more errors” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may analyze the collected device data to detect one or more errors with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 17 and 20 recite additional elements such as “c) deploying firmware to selected nodes or clusters based on a policy manifest”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 17 and 20 recite additional elements such as “f) when no errors are detected, deploying the firmware to a larger cluster of nodes according to the policy manifest”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2 and 18 of “when errors are detected, performing one or more actions as specified in the policy manifest” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “performing actions (suggestion or recommendation for correction)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform one or more actions as specified in the policy manifest when errors are detected with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the actions specified in the policy manifest upon detecting one or more errors include one or more of: a) sending notifications to administrators; b) reverting the firmware on the selected nodes to a previous version; and c) providing recommendations based on analysis of the errors”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying/outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “the selectable parameters for clustering the nodes include one or more of: workload type, CPU type, GPU type, hardware generation, and current firmware version”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A
Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 5 recites additional elements such as “the policy manifest is represented in a structured format including YAML or JSON and specifies parameters controlling the firmware update process”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A
Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “deploying the firmware to a subset of nodes selected randomly according to the policy manifest”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “observing the selected nodes over a specified observation period defined in the policy manifest” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “observing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may observe the selected nodes over a specified observation period defined in the policy manifest with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 8 of “checking for predefined error markers including system event logs, system logs, and baseboard management controller (BMC) process logs” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may check for predefined error markers including system event logs, system logs, and baseboard management controller (BMC) process logs with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “the firmware includes telemetry and analytics packages that collect information including logs, health information, and events, and send it to a management service”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A
Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “deploying the firmware is performed through a baseboard management controller (BMC) in communication with each selected node”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A
Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 11 of “using a discovery service to identify the plurality of nodes within the data center” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify the plurality of nodes within the data center using a discovery service with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “using a cluster service to organize the nodes into clusters based on the selectable parameters” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “organizing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may organize the nodes into clusters based on the selectable parameters using a cluster service with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “using a deployment manager to deploy the firmware to the selected nodes or clusters and to the larger cluster of nodes as defined in the policy manifest”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 14 recites additional elements such as “the policy manifest specifies trigger policies, scaling policies, error management strategies, and error actions for the firmware deployment”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A
Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 15 recites additional elements such as “the larger cluster of nodes comprises an increased number of nodes as defined in the scaling policies of the policy manifest”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A
Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 16 recites additional elements such as “repeating steps d) through f) iteratively to deploy the firmware to progressively larger clusters until the firmware is deployed to all targeted nodes in the data center as specified by the policy manifest”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-16 and 18-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 17 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), and further in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889).
As per Claim 1, Taniguchi teaches of a method of operating a computer system for scaled firmware deployment based on observable health markers, the method comprising: a) discovering a plurality of nodes within a data center; (Par 77, Further, the process comprises a device group configuration step of configuring the device groups based on the group configuration information in the group configuration information storing unit and the device information in the device information storing unit, a target device detection step of detecting added, deleted, or changed devices from the device groups configured in the device group configuration step as target devices, and a service provision step of providing the service to the target devices detected in the target device detection step. Par 73, The service providing apparatus comprises a device group configuration unit [data center].)
b) clustering the plurality of nodes into groups based on selectable parameters; (Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 and Par 14, As such, the device groups are configured by the device group configuration unit based on the group configuration information in the group configuration information storing unit and the device information in the device information storing unit. Par 71, As such, the application groups are configured by the application group configuration unit based on the group configuration information in the group configuration information storing unit and the application information in the application information storing unit. Par 31, the group configuration information includes conditions of applications constituting application groups. Par 243, In the step S316, the administrator is allowed to select the group configuration information to be changed from the group configuration information registration table 440 via the input device 60, and then the process progresses to the step S318. In the step S318, the administrator is allowed to edit the selected group configuration information via the input device 60, and then the process progresses to the step S320.)
c) deploying firmware to selected nodes or clusters based on a policy manifest; (Fig. 14 and Par 26, a target device detecting unit for detecting added, deleted, or changed devices from the device groups configured by the device group configuration unit as target devices, and a group operation executing unit for performing group operations regarding distribution or deletion of the applications to the target devices detected by the target service detecting unit. Par 41-42, the applications in the application storing unit are distributed to the target devices, to which the applications are to be added or of which applications are to be changed, by the group operation executing unit. Par 283, Then the process progresses to the step S606 and the read applications are distributed to the devices 100 based on the received application distribution list. Par 32, Thus, when the number of applications increases or decreases or when the attributes of the applications or the like change, the application information of the application information registration table 420 may be registered, deleted or changed or the group configuration information of the group configuration information registration table 440 may be registered, deleted or changed, such that the configurations of the groups may change.)
Taniguchi does not specifically teach, however Ly teaches of d) monitoring firmware stability on the selected nodes by collecting device data from each selected node; (Par 11, Therefore it is desirable to devise a system and method for monitoring the status of a network device at all times and for reporting any problems that may arise in the hardware, software or the interface components of the device to a technical support center so as to rapidly detect a problem with one or more network devices within a large group of network devices. Additionally, the need arises for the monitoring system and method to include the capability to process instructions from the technical support center in order to execute diagnostic tests on the hardware components or request more detailed information from the software subsystems included within the device.)
e) analyzing the collected device data to detect one or more errors; and (Par 24, The embedded software monitors the status of every hardware component and every software subsystem of the network device 14 by collecting and analyzing data received from the hardware components and software subsystems thereof When a problem with a software or a hardware component of the network device 14 is detected by the embedded software, the embedded software notifies the technical support center 22 regarding the problem by transmitting an email message 20, through the interface 16, thereto.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add d) monitoring firmware stability on the selected nodes by collecting device data from each selected node; e) analyzing the collected device data to detect one or more errors, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ly, into that of Taniguchi because this modification can help analyze the software deployed on the group of target devices to see if there is any compatibility issue or error.
Neither Taniguchi nor Ly specifically teaches, however Bird teaches of f) when no errors are detected, deploying the firmware to a larger cluster of nodes according to the policy manifest. (Col 2, lines 40-51, In accordance with an embodiment, user input to deploy the target software to the managed nodes in the recipient group may be received. A pilot group may be identified to test the target software. The pilot group may comprise a subset of the recipient group [a larger cluster/group of target nodes]. The target software may be deployed to the pilot group before the target software is deployed to other managed nodes in the recipient group that are not part of the pilot group. Col 4, lines 40-52, In response to receiving 202 these command(s), the deployment program 110 identifies 204 what will be referred to as a "pilot group" to test the target software 108. The pilot group comprises a subset of the managed nodes 106 within the recipient group 107, Col 4, line 65-Col 5, line 8, Hardware and/or software compatibility problems may occur after the target software 108 has been deployed 206 to the managed nodes 106 that are in the pilot group. These compatibility problems may cause a variety of undesirable effects, such as incorrect operation of the target software 108, operating system crashes, other software crashes, overall performance degradation, and so forth. Accordingly, once the target software 108 has been deployed to the managed nodes 106 in the pilot group, the deployment program 110 monitors 208 these managed nodes 106 for the purpose of detecting problems that occur. Col 5, lines 29-42, Once it is determined 214 that one or more conditions have been satisfied [no error], the target software 108 may be deployed 216 to the other managed nodes 106 in the recipient group 107 (i.e., those that are not in the pilot group).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add f) when no errors are detected, deploying the firmware to a larger cluster of nodes according to the policy manifest, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bird, into that of Taniguchi and Ly because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
As per Claim 2, neither Taniguchi nor Ly specifically teaches, however Bird teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising: when errors are detected, performing one or more actions as specified in the policy manifest. (Col 5, lines 21-28, If problems are detected with the performance of the target software 108 on the managed nodes 106 in the pilot group, the deployment program 110 may notify 210 the user about the detected problems. The deployment program 110 may also permit 212 the user to perform one or more corrective operations to address the detected problems. For example, the deployment program 110 may assist the user to locate a patch for the target software 108 that may fix the detected problems.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add when errors are detected, performing one or more actions as specified in the policy manifest, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bird, into that of Taniguchi and Ly because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
As per Claim 3, neither Taniguchi nor Ly specifically teaches, however Bird teaches of the method of claim 2, wherein the actions specified in the policy manifest upon detecting one or more errors include one or more of: a) sending notifications to administrators; b) reverting the firmware on the selected nodes to a previous version; and c) providing recommendations based on analysis of the errors. (Col 5, lines 21-42, If problems are detected with the performance of the target software 108 on the managed nodes 106 in the pilot group, the deployment program 110 may notify 210 the user about the detected problems. The deployment program 110 may also permit 212 the user to perform one or more corrective operations to address the detected problems. For example, the deployment program 110 may assist the user to locate a patch for the target software 108 that may fix the detected problems. Once it is determined 214 that one or more conditions have been satisfied, the target software 108 may be deployed 216 to the other managed nodes 106 in the recipient group 107 (i.e., those that are not in the pilot group). The conditions may be, for example, that no problems have been detected within a certain period of time, or that the user has performed corrective operations to address problems that have been detected. The target software 108 may be deployed 216 to all of the remaining managed nodes 106 in the recipient group 107 at the same time. Alternatively, deployment of the target software 108 to the remaining managed nodes 106 may be staggered so that different "target groups" receive the target software 108 at different times. This will be explained in greater detail below.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add a) sending notifications to administrators; b) reverting the firmware on the selected nodes to a previous version; and c) providing recommendations based on analysis of the errors, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bird, into that of Taniguchi and Ly because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
As per Claim 7, neither Taniguchi nor Ly specifically teaches, however Bird teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring firmware stability comprises observing the selected nodes over a specified observation period defined in the policy manifest. (Col 9, lines 63-67, The one or more conditions may be that no problems with the target software 108 are detected within a certain period of time, or that the system administrator has performed corrective operations to address any problems that are detected. Col 9, lines 19-28, In accordance with the depicted method 716, the remaining managed nodes 106 are divided 750 into N target groups. After the target software 108 is deployed 752 to the first target group, the deployment program 110 waits 754 for a predetermined period of time before deploying 756 the target software 108 to the second target group. This sequence of deploying the target software 108 to a target group, waiting for a predetermined period of time, and deploying the target software to another target group continues until the target software 108 is deployed 758 to the N.sup.th target group.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add observing the selected nodes over a specified observation period defined in the policy manifest, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bird, into that of Taniguchi and Ly because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
As per Claim 13, Taniguchi further teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising using a deployment manager to deploy the firmware to the selected nodes or clusters and to the larger cluster of nodes as defined in the policy manifest. (Par 283, Then the process progresses to the step S606 and the read applications are distributed to the devices 100 based on the received application distribution list. Then, a series of steps end, the process returns to the previous state. Par 29, creating an application distribution list in which the distribution destinations of the application are registered in association, with the application information to be distributed are included. Par 266, Here, as the group operations, for the target devices, to which the applications are to be added or of which application are to be changed, the application distribution list in which the application information of the applications to be distributed is registered in association with network addresses of the target devices is transmitted to the application distribution terminal 300, together with the application distribution request.)
As per Claim 15, Taniguchi further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the larger cluster of nodes comprises an increased number of nodes as defined in the scaling policies of the policy manifest. (Par 10, However, when the number of devices increases or decreases, or when attributes or the like of the devices change, new applications are to be distributed to added or changed devices, among the devices or necessary applications are to be deleted from added or changed devices among the devices. Par 28, Thus, when the number of devices increases or decreases, or when attributes of the devices change, the device information in the device information storing unit may be registered, deleted or changed, or the group configuration information in the group configuration information storing unit may change, such that the configurations of the groups may change.)
Re Claim 17, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 18, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 19, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 20, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Cieslak (US Patent 11853192).
As per Claim 4, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Cieslak teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the selectable parameters for clustering the nodes include one or more of: workload type, CPU type, GPU type, hardware generation, and current firmware version. (Col 2, lines 50-59, The system detects performance metrics by distributing benchmark applications to a plurality of client devices, the benchmark applications configured to produce performance metrics for each client device; receiving the performance metrics of the plurality of client devices; grouping the performance metrics based on one or more aspects of the plurality of client devices (e.g., model number, chipset, CPU type, and GPU type); and presenting the performance metrics grouped by the one or more aspects.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add workload type, CPU type, GPU type, hardware generation, and current firmware version, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Cieslak, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Sharma (US PGPub 20220326929).
As per Claim 5, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Sharma teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the policy manifest is represented in a structured format including YAML or JSON and specifies parameters controlling the firmware update process. (Par 62, Additionally, an application update package can also include a Helm chart that describes the configuration parameters in a declarative format (e.g., YAML) for at least one specific environment (e.g., a given cloud computing environment). PAr 50, Also, in at least one embodiment, the CUP package for a cloud native application can include a tar archive of manifest files (i.e., a collection of manifest files) and/or one or more Helm charts (i.e., Kubernetes YAML (or some other human-readable data-serialization language) manifests combined into a single package). The CUP manifest file can represent, in such an embodiment, relevant application metadata for the purpose of support assistance integration.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add the policy manifest is represented in a structured format including YAML or JSON and specifies parameters controlling the firmware update process, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sharma, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Gupta (US PGPub 20240007350).
As per Claim 6, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Gupta teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein deploying the firmware to selected nodes comprises deploying the firmware to a subset of nodes selected randomly according to the policy manifest. (Par 22, Conventional upgrade schemes use an all-at-once approach, a serial approach, or a “canary” upgrade that randomly selects a sample group of devices with which to test deployment of the software upgrade. However, such conventional upgrade schemes do not consider the importance or user real time usage of a network device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add deploying the firmware to a subset of nodes selected randomly according to the policy manifest, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Gupta, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Lin (US PGPub 20210365351).
As per Claim 8, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Lin teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the collected device data comprises checking for predefined error markers including system event logs, system logs, and baseboard management controller (BMC) process logs. (Par 38, If the abnormal log files do not comprise the log files corresponding to the first type of abnormal SDR, it may indicate that the BMC may have missed recording system log events or the SDR comprising abnormal records, the output module 104 may output a predetermined prompt message to remind an administrator of the server cluster to check.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add checking for predefined error markers including system event logs, system logs, and baseboard management controller (BMC) process logs, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Lin, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Chopra (US PGPub 20240303359).
As per Claim 9, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Chopra teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the firmware includes telemetry and analytics packages that collect information including logs, health information, and events, and send it to a management service. (Par 201, In Step 302, similar to Step 300, upon receiving the health check request for the data protection module from the requesting entity, or to monitor service performance and resource utilization of the data protection module, the analyzer obtains/gathers (or receives) telemetry metadata (e.g., application logs, system logs, data protection module related events, etc.) that are associated with the data protection module. In one or more embodiments, the obtained metadata (e.g., the source of truth) may specify (or include), for example (but not limited to): application metadata (to determine properties of an application executing on a data protection module), an amount of networking resource utilized by a data protection module to perform a network operation, a type of a workload utilized by a user, a data protection policy implemented by a user, etc. In one or more embodiments, metadata may indicate at least one state transition of the data protection module, in which, for example, the state transition (from a healthy state to an unhealthy state) of the data protection module may specify: operational Data Protection Module H.fwdarw.Data Protection Module H fan failure.fwdarw.overheating of Data Protection Module H's CPU.fwdarw.inability to perform asset discovery. Additional details of the metadata are described above in reference to FIG. 2. Par 205, In one or more embodiments, based on the relevant data, the analyzer may infer a user profile (e.g., a profile that indicates, at least, how the data protection module has been utilized, for example, to perform cloud tiering and/or self-service restore) of a user and a device profile (or health status) of the data protection module.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add the firmware includes telemetry and analytics packages that collect information including logs, health information, and events, and send it to a management service, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Chopra, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Dai (US PGPub 20230185562).
As per Claim 10, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Dai teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein deploying the firmware is performed through a baseboard management controller (BMC) in communication with each selected node. (Par 3, It is understandable that firmware deployed in servers such as a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) and a Power Supply Unit (PSU) may be updated irregularly, for example, Basic Input Output System (BIOS) version of the servers may be updated. Par 8, remotely updating firmware in batches, which is applied to a DHCP server connected with BMC of each server node. Par 58, The present application is suitable for updating firmware versions of server nodes connected with a DHCP server. That is, before executing the technical solutions of the present application, BMCs of server nodes such as all servers in a laboratory with firmware versions to be updated in batches are required to have access to a network in advance,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add deploying the firmware is performed through a baseboard management controller (BMC) in communication with each selected node, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Dai, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
13. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Zhang (US PGPub 20240039887).
As per Claim 11, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Zhang teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising using a discovery service to identify the plurality of nodes within the data center. (Par 62, The management node and the to-be-added computing nodes may be provided with host discovery services, so that the management node may discover the to-be-added computing nodes while scanning. The host discovery service on the to-be-added computing nodes is enabled, so that the management node may find the to-be-added computing nodes when the host discovery service on the management node is enabled to scan the to-be-added computing nodes in the data center.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add using a discovery service to identify the plurality of nodes within the data center, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Zhang, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
14. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Sreenivasan (US PGPub 20020198996).
As per Claim 12, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Sreenivasan teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising using a cluster service to organize the nodes into clusters based on the selectable parameters. (Abstract and par 9: a system for implementing a failover policy includes a cluster infrastructure for managing a plurality of nodes, a high availability infrastructure for providing group and cluster membership services, and a high availability script execution component operative to receive a failover script and at least one failover attribute and operative to produce a failover domain. Par 9, a system for implementing a failover policy includes a cluster infrastructure for managing a plurality of nodes, a high availability infrastructure for providing group and cluster membership services, and a high availability script execution component operative to receive a failover script and at least one failover attribute and operative to produce a failover domain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add using a cluster service to organize the nodes into clusters based on the selectable parameters, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sreenivasan, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
15. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Meduri (US Patent 11457080).
As per Claim 14, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Meduri teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the policy manifest specifies trigger policies, scaling policies, error management strategies, and error actions for the firmware deployment. (Col 8, lines 52-63, In other implementations, service mesh control plane 102 operates in conjunction with an application load balancer, in which the application load balancer also emits metrics collected by proxies 110 to a telemetry service, which the customer may use for configuring monitoring services of a computer resource service provider and/or trigger policies for scaling computer system resources. For example, the customer may configure, to scale scaling computer system resources, the alarm to trigger if a request rate from nodes 106A-C to the application load balancer is above a certain threshold. Col 2, lines 17-22, Therefore, the service mesh can be configured to collect the traffic data transmitted by proxies of the nodes to enable enhanced visibility into an application by leveraging the collected data to obtain metrics like latencies, error rates, error codes, service communication traces, and service-level logs on client and server-side.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add the policy manifest specifies trigger policies, scaling policies, error management strategies, and error actions for the firmware deployment, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Meduri, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
16. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US PGPub 20050166266), in view of Ly (US PGPub 20100011246), in view of Bird (US Patent 7865889), and further in view of Wang (US Patent 8572679).
As per Claim 16, none of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird specifically teaches, however Wang teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising repeating steps d) through f) iteratively to deploy the firmware to progressively larger clusters until the firmware is deployed to all targeted nodes in the data center as specified by the policy manifest. (Col 9, lines 33-41, Through deployment scopes, the change orchestrator application may deploy changes to the target system through a series of deployment scopes, each one covering a progressively larger group for extensively testing change requests before implementation on the target system. The example system may retrieve relevant data from data store(s) 915 directly or through database server 918, and provide requested services to the user(s) through client devices 911-913. Col 4, lines 44-49, In an example embodiment, the change request 102 may be deployed and propagated through a series of deployment scopes 116. The deployment scopes 116 may become increasingly larger in order to test the applied change at a number of stages before fully implementing the change on the target system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add repeating steps d) through f) iteratively to deploy the firmware to progressively larger clusters until the firmware is deployed to all targeted nodes in the data center as specified by the policy manifest, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Wang, into that of Taniguchi, Ly and Bird because this modification can help deploy the software to the target group of devices with same or similar characteristics while testing for any issue on a smaller size of the target group.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brasetvik (US PGPub 20190268431): Management services for distributed computing architectures using rolling changes are provided herein. An example system includes clusters of nodes providing services and a plurality of management servers, each of the plurality of management servers including: at least a distributed coordination service for the clusters of nodes, the distributed coordination service being a datastore; and a constructor that manages allocation and life cycle deployments of the nodes of the clusters, the constructor further configured to manage topological changes to nodes of the clusters by implement rolling attribute changes for the nodes
Deb (US PGPub 20220391316): saving the data in JSON format in a data store and retrieving additional metadata and process information corresponding to business process specific attributes including a patient medical record number, a diagnosis code, or encounter identifier, wherein the workflow verifies a stability and reliability of a software change or update; and generating executable code for the client workflow by mapping retrieved data with corresponding web page DOM controls based on a predefined code template.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights