Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 08/20/2026. Claims 1-9 and 14-24 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended, claims 10-13 have been cancelled, and claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-9 and 14-24 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, there is no support in the specification for claim 1 limitation which recites “a second physical computer comprises a chassis” in line 8. Claims 2-9 and 21-24 are rejected due to their claim dependency.
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 1-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (Pub. No.: 2018/0000346 A1) in view of Gwin (Pat. No.: 11,906,540 B1) and Aldereguia (Pub. No.: 2005/0196124 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Cronin discloses the claimed method for managing operation of a data processing system (fig. 1), the method comprising:
identifying, by a management controller of the data processing system (fig. 1: 120), an occurrence of an emergency alert event for the data processing system (fig. 1: 114);
based on the occurrence of the emergency alert event:
initiating, by the management controller and in cooperation with a management system for the data processing system, an emergency alert process (¶0038 discloses transmitting a trigger signal to the servers), the emergency alert process being cooperatively performed by an emergency services system (¶0038 and ¶0067 discloses the emergency server contact the emergency services) and at least hardware resources of the data processing system to update a state of the data processing system (¶0042 discloses a medical alert system is activated upon the trigger signal); and
providing, by the data processing system, computer implemented services based on the updated state of the data processing system (¶0052, ¶0055 and ¶0056 discloses a signal may be transmitted indicating how an emergency responder may provide assistance/treatment and other information).
Cronin does not explicitly disclose the management controller being a first physical computer configured as a system on a chip and the data processing system being a second physical computer that comprises a chasis in which the system on the chip is physically installed, the management controller operating independently from the data processing system while being physically installed in the data processing system, the management controller comprises a first hardware processor that is separate and operates independent of a second hardware processor of the data processing system, the hardware resources comprising the second processor and the management controller and the data processing system to provide services.
However, Gwin discloses it has been known for a management controller to be physically installed within a data processing system, the management controller being a separate an independently operating computing device from the data processing system, and the management controller comprising a first processor that is separate and independently operating from a second processor of the data processing system, the hardware resources comprising the second processor and the management controller and the data processing system to provide services (fig. 1: 112 and col. 4, lines 32-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Cronin to have the management controller physically installed within a data processing system, as taught by Gwin.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Cronin as described above in order to have the processing capability located at a central location, thereby lowering the overall cost of the system.
In addition, Aldereguia discloses it is known in a data processing system (fig. 1: 100 discloses as a data processing system) for a management controller (fig. 1: 160 discloses as a management controller) to be a first physical computer configured as a system on a chip (¶0018-¶0019) and the data processing system being a second physical computer (fig. 1: 100) that comprises a chassis in which the system on the chip is physically installed (¶0016), the management controller operating independently from the data processing system while being physically installed in the data processing system (¶0018-¶0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow Cronin to have a management controller operating independently of a data processing system, as taught by Aldereguia.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Cronin as described above in order to reduce the workload of a central processor.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the occurrence of the emergency alert event comprises: monitoring, by the management controller, operation of the hardware resources, the operation of the hardware resources being indicative of occurrences of the emergency alert event (Cronin ¶0056).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 2, wherein monitoring the operation of the hardware resources comprises: programming, by the management controller, an agent hosted by the hardware resources (Cronin ¶0050).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 3), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the agent is programmed to screen for at least one selected from a group consisting of: invocation, by a user of the data processing system, a hotkey combination; providing, by an auxiliary device and to the hardware resources, information indicative of the occurrence of the emergency alert event; and information, by a remote device and the hardware resources, information indicative of the occurrence of the emergency alert event (Cronin ¶0050).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the auxiliary device is one selected from a group consisting of: a health state monitor; and a personal computing device (Cronin ¶0050).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the health state monitor is one selected from a group consisting of: a heart rate monitor; and a glucose monitor (Cronin ¶0050).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 5), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the personal computing device is a body worn computing device that comprises at least one sensor for monitoring a user of the data processing system (Cronin ¶0049).
8) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 4), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the remote device is a safety system tasked with assisting in managing safety of users of the data processing system (Cronin ¶0054).
9) In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 14), claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 15), claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 4 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 18), claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (Pub. No.: 2018/0000346 A1) in view of Gwin (Pat. No.: 11,906,540 B1), and Aldereguia (Pub. No.: 2005/0196124 A1) and further in view of Vonfrolio (Pub. No.: 2019/0266881 A1).
1) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 7), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia disclose the method of claim 7.
Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia do not explicitly disclose the safety system is a fire management system.
However, Vonfrolio discloses it is known for a method to monitor a user to have a safety system which is a fire management system (¶0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the safety system of Cronin be a fire management system, as taught by Vonfrolio.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Cronin as described above in order to facilitate a rapid and appropriate response in the event of an emergency, as taught by Vonfrolio.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (Pub. No.: 2018/0000346 A1) in view of Gwin (Pat. No.: 11,906,540 B1) and Aldereguia (Pub. No.: 2005/0196124 A1) and further in view of Mugunda (Pat. No.: 11,870,668 B1).
1) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 1), Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia further disclose the method of claim 1.
Cronin, Gwin and Aldereguia do not explicitly disclose the data processing system comprises a single network module that is shared by both of the management controller and the hardware resources, the single network module being a sole network component of the data processing system and is adapted to separately advertise network endpoints for the management controller and the hardware resources of the data processing system, and the network endpoints are usable by the management system and the emergency services system to separately address communications to the hardware resources using an in-band communication channel and to the management controller using an out-of-band communication channel.
However, Mugunda discloses it has been known for a data processing system (fig. 2a: 200) comprises a single network module that is shared by both of the management controller and the hardware resources (fig. 2a: 202), the single network module being a sole network component of the data processing system (fig. 2 shows element 202 is the sole network component) and is adapted to separately advertise network endpoints for the management controller and the hardware resources of the data processing system (fig. 2a: 220 and 222), and the network endpoints are usable by the management system and the emergency services system to separately address communications to the hardware resources using an in-band communication channel and to the management controller using an out-of-band communication channel (fig. 2a: 220 and 222; see also col. 6, lines 62-67 to col. 7, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Cronin devices communicate with a single network component, as taught by Mugunda.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Cronin as described above in order to allow the management controller to communicate with other devices, as taught by Mugunda (col. 6, lines 62-63).
2) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 21), Cronin, Gwin, Aldereguia and Mugunda further disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the single network module separately advertises the network endpoints for the management controller and the hardware resources such that first communications that are addressed to management controller never flows through the hardware resources and the in-band communication channel before reaching the management controller, the first communications being ones of the communications (Mugunda fig. 2a shows each channel 220 and 222 communicates via its own separate line).
3) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 21), Cronin, Gwin, Aldereguia and Mugunda further disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the out-of-band communication channel runs through the single network module and the in-band communication channel that services the hardware resources also runs through the single network module (Mugunda fig. 2a shows each band runs through the single network module), and the out-of-band communication channel connects the management controller directly to the single network module while the in-band communication channel directly connects the hardware resources to the single network module (fig. 2a shows the channel 220 connects controller to the single network module, and channel 222 connects the device to the single network module).
4) In regard to claim 24 (dependent on claim 21), Cronin, Gwin, Aldereguia and Mugunda further disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the single network module hosts a first transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack for only the management controller to facilitate first network communications for the management controller via the out-of-band communication channel and a second TCP/IP stack that is separate and different from the first TCP/IP stack for only the hardware resources to facilitate second network communications for the hardware resources via the in-band communication channel (Aldereguia ¶0023 discloses communicating via the TCP/IP stack; Mugunda col. 6, lines 62-67 to col. 7, lines 1-3 discloses using in-band and out-band channels).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
