Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 05/07/2026. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 14, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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).
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 information3).
Cronin does not explicitly disclose the management controller is physically installed within the data processing system, the management controller being a separate and 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.
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 and 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.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Cronin and Gwin 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 and Gwin 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 and Gwin 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 and Gwin 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 and Gwin 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 and Gwin 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 and Gwin 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 further in view of Vonfrolio (Pub. No.: 2019/0266881 A1).
1) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 7), Cronin and Gwin disclose the method of claim 7.
Cronin and Gwin 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 10-13 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 further in view of Gould (Pat. No.: 8,095,610 B2).
1) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Cronin and Gwin disclose the method of claim 1.
Cronin and Gwin do not explicitly disclose, wherein the data processing system comprises a network module adapted to separately advertise network endpoints for the management controller and the hardware resources of the data processing system, the network endpoints being usable by the management system and the emergency services system to address communications to the hardware resources using an in-band communication channel and the management controller using the out-of-band communication channel.
However, Gould discloses it is known for a method with a data processing system to have a network module adapted to separately advertise network endpoints for the management controller and the hardware resources of the data processing system, the network endpoints being usable by the management system and the emergency services system to address communications to the hardware resources using an in-band communication channel and the management controller using the out-of-band communication channel (col. 7, lines 4-17).
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 transmit via an in-band communication channel or out-of-band communication channel, as taught by Gould.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Cronin as described above in order to provide a redundant channel in the system, thereby, providing a backup channel.
2) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Cronin, Gwin and Gould further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the management controller and the network module are on separate power domains from the hardware resources so that the management controller and the network module are operable while the hardware resources are inoperable (Cronin fig. 1).
3) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 10), Cronin, Gwin and Gould further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the out-of-band communication channel runs through the network module, and the in-band communication channel that services the hardware resources also runs through the network module (Gould col. 7, lines 4-17).
4) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 10), Cronin, Gwin and Gould further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the network module hosts a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack to facilitate network communications via the out-of-band communication channel (Cronin ¶0113).
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights