DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18: revert to original – see “Response to Arguments” for explanation
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN (US 20210366092 A1) in view of PAMLEY et al. (US 20150356034 A1, hereinafter “PAMLEY”), and in further view of TANAKA et al. (US 20220246045 A1, hereinafter “TANAKA”).
Regarding Claim 1, VENKATRAMAN discloses an information handling system executing computer-readable program code instructions to provide port resiliency and artificial intelligence (AI) recommendations for damaged ports at the information handling system (Fig. 5 and [0098]: example environment 500 in which systems and/or methods described herein may be implemented. [0101]: includes set of instructions to perform one or more operations described herein. Fig. 2; Fig. 4; [0056]; [0094]: operations include utilizing a machine learning model to maintain and manage ports on connector panels as well as providing recommendations to identify an available port (e.g., [0068]-[0070]: in response to a failed port test)) comprising:
a hardware processor (Fig. 5 and [0101]: processor 507 executes set of instructions to perform one or more operations or processes described herein), a data storage device (Fig. 5: storage component 509), and …;
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a diagnostic subagent (see above for processor executing instructions to perform method described herein) to detect damage to a first port at the information handling system via port testing and generate diagnostic port data describing the first port that is damaged among a plurality of ports at the information handling system… ([0068]: user may connect a testing device to a cable extending from the port. Connection management system 210 may transmit a signal to the port to test the connection to the port. [0070]: Connection management system 210 serves as a “diagnostic subagent” by determining that the test was not successful (i.e., “damaged”) and provide a notification to the user device 205 including information identifying another available port (among a plurality of ports) on the connector panel);
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code of a port identification and guidance module (see above) to gather baseline port mapping data describing mapping of hardware components including the first port and at least a second port within the information handling system and capabilities of those hardware components and the plurality of ports ([0071]: connection management system 210 also serves as a “port identification and guidance module” by modifying a port status mapping to indicate that the port is damaged. [0056]: connection management system 210 corresponds to connection management system 110. [0049]: connection management system 110 (and therefore also 210) obtains port status mapping associated with the connector panel, including information identifying ports (i.e., “at least a second port”) included on the connector panel and information indicating a respective status of each of the ports); and
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of the port identification and guidance module (see above) to receive and input the diagnostic port data and baseline port mapping data to a baseline mapping-to-output machine learning (ML) algorithm to… describe which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged ([0070]: in response to the failed port test, connection management system 210 provides a notification to the user identifying another available port on the connector panel. [0053]: port analysis model ([0022]: which is a ML model) may also receive updated port status mapping for additional training. [0092]: connection management system 210 may be trained based on observations associated with managing physical connections of a connector panel. [0094]: based on a new observation, machine learning system may provide a recommendation such as a recommendation to not use the port to establish a circuit and identify an available port that can be used to establish the circuit. Therefore, the trained port analysis model effectively receives the failed port test and updated mapping as observations to generate a recommendation on another available port to use in lieu of the first port that failed the port test).
VENKATRAMAN does not disclose:
…a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and data storage device;
…wherein the first port and the plurality of ports are side data ports mounted into a side housing of the information handling system;
...a baseline mapping-to-text machine learning (ML) algorithm to generate user-guided text , audio, or image describing which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged.
However, PAMLEY teaches:
…a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and data storage device (Fig. 1 and [0014]: computer 110 includes circuit board 111 and power supply unit (PSU) 113, wherein circuit board 111 is further shown to include processor 112 and memory 114. [0019]: PSU may be a multi-voltage connector to power various components of the motherboard. [0016]: circuit board 111 may be a motherboard of computer 110, thus PSU provides power to processor 112 and memory 114 located on the motherboard/circuit board 111).
…wherein the first port and the plurality of ports are side data ports mounted into a side housing of the information handling system (Fig. 1; [0014]: ports 120 shown on the side of computer 110);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN and PAMLEY by implementing the PSU and ports taught by PAMLEY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide power to components such as processor and memory (PAMLEY: [0014]-[0019]). Additionally, a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0057]-[0058]; [0068]; [0070]: port defect detection, where the analyzed connector panel is at a specified site) for another (PAMLEY: Fig. 1, 5; [0088]: port system suitable for implementation as one or more ports 120 of Fig. 1. Shown part of a connector panel with other ports. [0100]: detects defective port within the same system. Thus, connector panel may be within the same system performing the detecting) obtains predictable results (detect port status of a connector panel).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY does not teach:
a baseline mapping-to-text machine learning (ML) algorithm to generate user-guided text , audio, or image describing which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged.
However, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches:
a baseline mapping-to-text machine learning (ML) algorithm (VENKATRAMAN: see above – inputs observation (e.g., failed port test output and updated port status mapping) to port analysis ML model to generate a recommendation identifying another available port to use in response to the first port that failed the port connectivity test (i.e., “damaged port”)) to generate user-guided text , audio, or image describing which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged (TANAKA: [0072]: screen image to provide the user with a suggestion to use alternative port 5a since port 5 becomes unavailable to flight vehicle 4. Fig. 6: screen image also contains user-guided text on what port to use in lieu of an unavailable port).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, and TANAKA by expanding upon the flight port suggestion GUI taught by TANAKA to apply to device ports and the port recommendation generated by the ML model taught by VENKATRAMAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to suggest alternatives to the user in the event that a port is unavailable (TANAKA: [0072]).
Regarding Claim 9, VENKATRAMAN discloses a method executing computer-readable program code instructions for providing port resiliency and artificial intelligence (AI) recommendations for damaged ports at an information handling system (Fig. 5 and [0098]: example environment 500 in which systems and/or methods described herein may be implemented [0101]: includes set of instructions executed by processor 507 to perform one or more operations described herein. Fig. 2; Fig. 4; [0056]; [0094]: operations include utilizing a machine learning model to maintain and manage ports on connector panels as well as providing recommendations to identify an available port (e.g., [0068]-[0070]: in response to a failed port test)) comprising:
executing, with a hardware processor, computer-readable program code instructions (see above – processor 507 executes set of instructions to perform one or more operations described herein) of a diagnostic subagent to detect damage, via port testing, to a first port at the information handling system and generate diagnostic port data describing the first port that is damaged among a plurality of ports at the information handling system… ([0068]: user may connect a testing device to a cable extending from the port. Connection management system 210 may transmit a signal to the port to test the connection to the port. [0070]: Connection management system 210 serves as a “diagnostic subagent” by determining that the test was not successful (i.e., “damaged”) and provide a notification to the user device 205 including information identifying another available port (among a plurality of ports) on the connector panel);
executing, with the hardware processor, computer-readable program code (see above) of a port identification and guidance module to gather baseline port mapping data describing mapping of hardware components including locations of the plurality of ports within the information handling system and capabilities of those hardware components and the plurality of ports ([0071]: connection management system 210 also serves as a “port identification and guidance module” by modifying a port status mapping to indicate that the port is damaged. [0056]: connection management system 210 corresponds to connection management system 110. [0049]: connection management system 110 (and therefore also 210) obtains port status mapping associated with the connector panel, including information identifying ports (i.e., “at least a second port”) included on the connector panel and information indicating a respective status of each of the ports);
executing, with the hardware processor, computer-readable program code instructions (see above) of the port identification and guidance module to receive and input the diagnostic port data, baseline port mapping data, and hardware telemetry data for peripheral devices historically coupled to the plurality of ports, and executing a baseline mapping-to-output machine learning (ML) algorithm… describing which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged ([0070]: in response to the failed port test, connection management system 210 provides a notification to the user identifying another available port on the connector panel. [0053]: port analysis model ([0022]: which is a ML model) may also receive updated port status mapping for additional training. [0064]-[0066]: port analysis module also receives an install image describing availability status of each port containing previously connected cables (peripheral devices). [0092]: connection management system 210 may be trained based on observations associated with managing physical connections of a connector panel. [0094]: based on a new observation, machine learning system may provide a recommendation such as a recommendation to not use the port to establish a circuit and identify an available port that can be used to establish the circuit. Therefore, the trained port analysis model effectively receives the failed port test, updated mapping, and install image as observations to generate a recommendation on another available port to use in lieu of the first port that failed the port test); and
VENKATRAMAN does not disclose:
…wherein the first port and the plurality of ports are side data ports mounted into a siding housing of the information handling system;
…generate user-guided text, audio, or image describing which port to use in lieu of the first port…
executing, with the hardware processor, computer-readable program code instructions to display the user-guided text or image via a recommendation and guidance graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device or play user-guided audio via a speaker.
However, PAMLEY teaches:
…wherein the first port and the plurality of ports are side data ports mounted into a siding housing of the information handling system (Fig. 1; [0014]: ports 120 shown on the side of computer 110);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN and PAMLEY by implementing the ports taught by PAMLEY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0057]-[0058]; [0068]; [0070]: port defect detection, where the analyzed connector panel is at a specified site) for another (PAMLEY: Fig. 1, 5; [0088]: port system suitable for implementation as one or more ports 120 of Fig. 1. Shown part of a connector panel with other ports. [0100]: detects defective port within the same system. Thus, connector panel may be within the same system performing the detecting) obtains predictable results (detect port status of a connector panel).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY does not teach:
…generate user-guided text, audio, or image describing which port to use in lieu of the first port…
executing, with the hardware processor, computer-readable program code instructions to display the user-guided text or image via a recommendation and guidance graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device or play user-guided audio via a speaker.
However, TANAKA teaches:
…generate user-guided text, audio, or image describing what port to use in lieu of the first port… ([0072]: screen image to provide the user with a suggestion to use alternative port 5a since port 5 becomes unavailable to flight vehicle 4. Fig. 6: screen image also contains user-guided text on what port to use in lieu of an unavailable port)
executing, with the hardware processor, computer-readable program code instructions to display the user-guided text or image via a recommendation and guidance graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device or play user-guided audio via a speaker (Fig. 6 and [0072]: screen GUI containing user-guided text is displayed on a screen of a display device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, and TANAKA by expanding upon the flight port suggestion GUI taught by TANAKA to apply to device ports and the port recommendation generated by the ML model taught by VENKATRAMAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to suggest alternatives to the user in the event that a port is unavailable (TANAKA: [0072]).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Yan et al. (CN 117272082 A, hereinafter “Yan”).
Regarding Claim 2, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the information handling system of claim 1, as referenced above, further comprising: the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code instructions of an AI productivity tool software module to receive user-query input associated with operation of a peripheral device operationally coupled to the first port that is damaged (VEKATRAMAN: [0064]: user captures install image of the connector panel after connecting a cable to the identified port and provides the image to connection management system 210. [0065]-[0066]: connection management system 210 ([0056]: interpreted as an “AI productivity tool software module” as it includes a platform that utilizes a ML model) receives the image and validates that the installation by validating whether the status of the port changed from available to unavailable ([0046]: similar to Fig. 1E, where the port analysis model analyzes the image). [0067]-[0068]: connection management system 210 validates connection to the port. [0070]: later determined that the port connected to the cable failed the port connectivity test, which is interpreted as a “damaged port.” Therefore, connection system 210 containing port analysis module receives user-query input in the form of an installation image. The installation image is used to determine the operation of a peripheral device (cable) coupled to the first port that is (later discovered to be) damaged via port testing), and
invoke a ML model algorithm to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities associated with the diagnostic subagent and the port identification and guidance module that semantically or lexically match as responsive to the user-query input (VENKATRAMAN: [0065]: invokes port analysis model ([0022]: which is a ML model) to identify availability/unavailability of ports responsive to the user-inputted installation image. [0067]-[0071]: the responsive capabilities (availability/unavailability) are later further validated via port testing (conducted by connection management system 210, the interpreted diagnostic subagent – see above) and used to update port mapping (also conducted by connection management system 210, the interpreted port identification and guidance module – see above))
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
and invoke a plurality of ML model algorithms to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities….
However, YAN teaches:
and invoke a plurality of ML model algorithms to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities…. (Lines 851-857: various classifiers and a XGBoost model is used to identify the root cause of a poor cable connection (e.g., bad cable connection, device overheating). Lines 156-157: classifier refers to neural network classifiers)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAM, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Yan by implementing the ensemble model taught by Yan for port status identification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to analyze multiple features to detect different root causes of the anomaly and enhance confidence in the exact cause to ensure normal operation (Yan: lines 830-832 and 851-857).
Regarding Claim 10, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the method of claim 9, as referenced above, further comprising:
executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code instructions of an AI productivity tool software module to receive a user-query input associated with operation of a peripheral device operatively coupled to the first port that is damaged (VEKATRAMAN: [0064]: user captures install image of the connector panel after connecting a cable to the identified port and provides the image to connection management system 210. [0065]-[0066]: connection management system 210 ([0056]: interpreted as an “AI productivity tool software module” as it includes a platform that utilizes a ML model) receives the image and validates that the installation by validating whether the status of the port changed from available to unavailable ([0046]: similar to Fig. 1E, where the port analysis model analyzes the image). [0067]-[0068]: connection management system 210 validates connection to the port. [0070]: later determined that the port connected to the cable failed the port connectivity test, which is interpreted as a “damaged port.” Therefore, connection system 210 containing port analysis module receives user-query input in the form of an installation image. The installation image is used to determine the operation of a peripheral device (cable) coupled to the first port that is (later discovered to be) damaged via port testing) and invoke a ML model algorithm to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities that semantically or lexically match as responsive to the user-query input that are associated with the diagnostic subagent and the port identification and guidance module (VENKATRAMAN: [0065]: invokes port analysis model ([0022]: which is a ML model) to identify availability/unavailability of ports responsive to the user-inputted installation image. [0067]-[0071]: the responsive capabilities (availability/unavailability) are later further validated via port testing (conducted by connection management system 210, the interpreted diagnostic subagent – see above) and used to update port mapping (also conducted by connection management system 210, the interpreted port identification and guidance module – see above)).
VENKATRAMAN in view PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
and invoke a plurality of ML model algorithms to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities….
However, Yan teaches:
and invoke a plurality of ML model algorithms to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities…. (Lines 851-857: various classifiers and a XGBoost model is used to identify the root cause of a poor cable connection (e.g., bad cable connection, device overheating). Lines 156-157: classifier refers to neural network classifiers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAM, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Yan by implementing the ensemble model taught by Yan for port status identification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to analyze multiple features to detect different root causes of the anomaly and enhance confidence in the exact cause to ensure normal operation (Yan: lines 830-832 and 851-857).
Claims 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Yan, and in further view of LOUZOUN (US 20200228467 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Yan teaches the information handling system of claim 2, as referenced above, wherein a responsive capability identified by the AI productivity tool software module includes executing an external loopback testing capability associated with… the ports by the diagnostic subagent (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: connection management system 210 transmit a signal to the testing device (e.g., user device 205) connected to an end of the cable extending from the port. User device 205 provides information indicating that the testing device received the signal back to the connection management system 210, completing an external loopback port test).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Yan does not teach:
…executing an internal loop back testing capability associated with a port driver of the ports…
However, LOUZOUN teaches:
…executing an internal loop back testing capability associated with a port driver of the ports… ([0054]: port failure or unavailability can be detected by a teaming driver. Port failure can occur if alive loopback packets are not received (no response)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to perform a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: external loopback testing) for another (LOUZOUN: [0054]: internal loopback testing via teaming driver) to produce predictable results (determine port failure).
Regarding Claim 11, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Yan teaches the method of claim 10, as referenced above, wherein a responsive capability identified by the AI productivity tool software module includes the port testing… as the responsive capability associated with the diagnostic sub-agent (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: connection management system 210 transmit a signal to the testing device (e.g., user device 205) connected to an end of the cable extending from the port. User device 205 provides information indicating that the testing device received the signal back to the connection management system 210, completing an external loopback port test to identify connectivity (responsive capability identified by connection management 210)).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Yan does not teach:
…port testing via a port driver as the responsive capability …
However, LOUZOUN teaches:
…port testing via a port driver as the responsive capability … (([0054]: port failure or unavailability can be detected by a teaming driver. Port failure can occur if alive loopback packets are not received (no response))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to perform a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: external loopback testing) for another (LOUZOUN: [0054]: internal loopback testing via teaming driver) to produce predictable results (determine port failure).
Regarding Claim 12, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the method of claim 9, as referenced above, further comprising: executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code instructions of the diagnostic subagent to detect damage to the first port at the information handling system via port testing that includes an external loopback test (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: connection management system 210 transmit a signal to the testing device (e.g., user device 205) connected to an end of the cable extending from the port. User device 205 provides information indicating that the testing device received the signal back to the connection management system 210, completing an external loopback port test to detect damage to the port (see [0070]-[0071]: failed test indicates an unavailable and damaged port))… and power test via a power management unit (PAMLEY: [0100]: enables/disables one or more USB ports which may have malfunctioned. Applies power to USB ports on a port-by-port basis and detects an overcurrent condition on one or more USB ports. Transmits feedback to attempt to clear the overcurrent condition. If the overcurrent cannot be cleared, one or more “defective” USB ports are locked out).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
via port testing that includes an internal loopback test via execution of a port driver
However, LOUZOU teaches:
via port testing that includes an internal loopback test via execution of a port driver ([0054]: port failure or unavailability can be detected by a teaming driver. Port failure can occur if alive loopback packets are not received (no response)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to perform a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: external loopback testing) for another (LOUZOUN: [0054]: internal loopback testing via teaming driver) to produce predictable results (determine port failure).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Hua et al. (US 20070255819 A1, hereinafter “Hua”).
Regarding Claim 4, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the information handling system of claim 1, as referenced above, further comprising: the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code instructions of the diagnostic subagent to detect damage to a port at the information handling system via an external loopback test… for the plurality of ports at the information handling system (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: connection management system 210 transmit a signal to the testing device (e.g., user device 205) connected to an end of the cable extending from the port. User device 205 provides information indicating that the testing device received the signal back to the connection management system 210, completing an external loopback port test).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
…executing an internal loop back testing capability via execution of port drivers of the ports…
However, Hua teaches
…executing an internal loop back testing capability via execution of port drivers of the ports… (Fig. 2 and [0040]: tests and monitors operations of Ethernet drivers 250-290 and Ethernet adapters 254-294 to detect failed adapters by generating a packet and assigning transmission and/or reception of the packet to an Ethernet adapter, where the packet is associated for the corresponding Ethernet driver. Ethernet driver increments one or more values in a register. where activity monitor 235 and activity comparator 24 monitors and compares the detected activity with projected activity to determine whether the driver and adapter are operating correctly or are a failed adapter. [0041]: in some embodiments, an internal timer may be used to instruct the Ethernet drivers to store the transmit activity and send the counts to failure detection logic 230, completing the internal loop test).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine implement the failure detection taught by Hua. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to detect a failed adapter (and thus corresponding failed driver and connected port) for a plurality of peripheral devices (Hua: [0040]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Berger et al. (US 20200067784 A1, hereinafter “Berger”).
Regarding Claim 5, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the information handling system of claim 1, as referenced above, further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code of the port identification and guidance module to gather baseline port mapping data… (VENKATRAMAN: [0071]: connection management system 210 modifies a port status mapping to indicate that the port is damaged. To perform the update, connection management system 210 effectively gathers the port status mapping).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
…baseline port mapping data of an as-built configuration from a remote management server for a type and specified customization of the information handling system as purchased.
However, Berger teaches:
…baseline port mapping data of an as-built configuration from a remote management server for a type and specified customization of the information handling system as purchased ([0042]: port ID may be stored in a port map in system or local memory. Port ID was assigned by virtual shelf management (VSM ) server. Port ID may be assigned by a manufacturer through hardware configuration (which encompasses type and original customization of the device as purchased)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Berger by implementing the port mapping taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a source of a port map (Berger: [0042]).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Shaw (US 20040163011 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY in further view of TANAKA teaches the information handling system of claim 1, as referenced above.
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a purchase recommendation module to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data, the diagnostic port data, and gathered hardware telemetry data on other hardware components in the information handling system to lexically or semantically match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged.
However, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw teaches:
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a purchase recommendation module (Shaw: Fig. 1 and [0019]: as depicted and described, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hardware failure module 42 is a software module containing executable-instructions by a processor) to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data (Shaw: [0019]: diagnostics code indicates hardware on which diagnostics was run (e.g., [0020]: e.g., 01 for modem). Diagnostics code identifies a specific hardware and its condition, thus interpreted as a mapping (i.e., maps an numeric identifier to a specific hardware) for a plurality of hardware included in IHS 14 (see Fig. 1)), the diagnostic port data (Shaw: [0019]: diagnostics code containing failure type), and gathered hardware telemetry data on other hardware components in the information handling system (Shaw: Fig. 1 and [0019]: IHS 14 is shown as hardware itself. The shipped hardware may also be based on telemetry data of the IHS such as operating system and version, driver versions, and hardware on which diagnostics was run) to lexically or semantically match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged (Shaw: [0019]: confirms diagnostics codes of failed hardware component and automatically initiates shipment of a replacement part (i.e., automatically identifies and ships “purchasable hardware)” by a hardware shipper 44 to customer site 14 for the damaged hardware).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Shaw by implementing the automatic ordering taught by Shaw as part of the information indicating an action to be taken to repair a port having a status of damaged but repairable as taught by VENKATRAMAN ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the expense associated with service of an IHS failure (Shaw: [0011]).
Regarding Claim 17, VENKATRAMAN discloses an information handling system (Fig. 5) comprising:
a hardware processor (Fig. 5 and [0101]: processor 507 may execute set of instructions to perform one or more operations or processes described herein), a data storage device (Fig. 5: memory 508, storage components 509), and…;
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions (see above) of a diagnostic subagent to detect damage to a first port at the information handling system via port testing and generate diagnostic port data describing the first port that is damaged among a plurality of ports at the information handling system… ([0068]: user may connect a testing device to a cable extending from the port. Connection management system 210 may transmit a signal to the port to test the connection to the port. [0070]: Connection management system 210 serves as a “diagnostic subagent” by determining that the test was not successful (i.e., “damaged”) and provide a notification to the user device 205 including information identifying another available port (among a plurality of ports) on the connector panel);
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code of a port identification and guidance module (see above) to gather baseline port mapping data describing mapping of hardware components including locations of the plurality of ports within the information handling system and capabilities of those hardware components and the plurality of ports ([0071]: connection management system 210 also serves as a “port identification and guidance module” by modifying a port status mapping to indicate that the port is damaged. [0056]: connection management system 210 corresponds to connection management system 110. [0049]: connection management system 110 (and therefore also 210) obtains port status mapping associated with the connector panel, including information identifying ports (i.e., “at least a second port”) included on the connector panel and information indicating a respective status of each of the ports);
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of the port identification and guidance module (see above) to receive and input the diagnostic port data, the baseline port mapping data, and hardware telemetry data for the hardware components and the plurality of ports into a baseline mapping-to-output machine learning (ML) algorithm… describing which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged ([0070]: in response to the failed port test, connection management system 210 provides a notification to the user identifying another available port on the connector panel. [0053]: port analysis model ([0022]: which is a ML model) may also receive updated port status mapping for additional training. [0064]-[0066]: port analysis module also receives an install image describing availability status of each port containing previously connected cables (peripheral devices). [0092]: connection management system 210 may be trained based on observations associated with managing physical connections of a connector panel. [0094]: based on a new observation, machine learning system may provide a recommendation such as a recommendation to not use the port to establish a circuit and identify an available port that can be used to establish the circuit. Therefore, the trained port analysis model effectively receives the failed port test, updated mapping, and install image as observations to generate a recommendation on another available port to use in lieu of the first port that failed the port test)
VENKATRAMAN does not disclose:
and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and data storage device
…wherein the first port and the plurality of ports are side data ports mounted into a side housing of the information handling system;
…generate user-guided text or audio describing which port to use…
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a purchase recommendation module to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data, and the hardware telemetry data to match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged.
However, PAMLEY teaches:
and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and data storage device (Fig. 1 and [0014]: computer 110 includes circuit board 111 and power supply unit (PSU) 113, wherein circuit board 111 is further shown to include processor 112 and memory 114. [0019]: PSU may be a multi-voltage connector to power various components of the motherboard. [0016]: circuit board 111 may be a motherboard of computer 110, thus PSU provides power to processor 112 and memory 114 located on the motherboard/circuit board 111).
…wherein the first port and the plurality of ports are side data ports mounted into a side housing of the information handling system (Fig. 1; [0014]: ports 120 shown on the side of computer 110);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN and PAMLEY by implementing the PSU and ports taught by PAMLEY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide power to components such as processor and memory (PAMLEY: [0014]-[0019]). Additionally, a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0057]-[0058]; [0068]; [0070]: port defect detection, where the analyzed connector panel is at a specified site) for another (PAMLEY: Fig. 1, 5; [0088]: port system suitable for implementation as one or more ports 120 of Fig. 1. Shown part of a connector panel with other ports. [0100]: detects defective port within the same system) obtains predictable results (detect port status of a connector panel).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY does not teach:
…generate user-guided text or audio describing which port to use…
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a purchase recommendation module to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data, and the hardware telemetry data to match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged.
However, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches
…generate user-guided text or audio describing which port to use… (TANAKA: [0072]: screen image to provide the user with a suggestion to use alternative port 5a since port 5 becomes unavailable to flight vehicle 4. Fig. 6: screen image also contains user-guided text on what port to use in lieu of an unavailable port).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, and TANAKA by expanding upon the flight port suggestion GUI taught by TANAKA to apply to device ports and the port recommendation generated by the ML model taught by VENKATRAMAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to suggest alternatives to the user in the event that a port is unavailable (TANAKA: [0072]).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a purchase recommendation module to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data, and the hardware telemetry data to match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged.
However, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Shaw teaches:
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of a purchase recommendation module (Shaw: Fig. 1 and [0019]: as depicted and described, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hardware failure module 42 is a software module containing executable-instructions by a processor) to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data (Shaw: [0019]: diagnostics code indicates hardware on which diagnostics was run (e.g., [0020]: e.g., 01 for modem). Diagnostics code identifies a specific hardware and its condition, thus interpreted as a mapping (i.e., maps an numeric identifier to a specific hardware) for a plurality of hardware included in IHS 14 (see Fig. 1)), and the hardware telemetry data (Shaw: [0019]-[0020]: diagnostics code containing hardware type identifier and failure type specific to the hardware type) to match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged (Shaw: [0019]: confirms diagnostics codes of failed hardware component and automatically initiates shipment of a replacement part (i.e., automatically identifies and ships “purchasable hardware)” by a hardware shipper 44 to customer site 14 for the damaged hardware).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Shaw by implementing the automatic ordering taught by Shaw as part of the information indicating an action to be taken to repair a port having a status of damaged but repairable as taught by VENKATRAMAN ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the expense associated with service of an IHS failure (Shaw: [0011]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, and in further view of Quora (NPL: “Is there any way to fix a broken USB port on a laptop other than replacing the motherboard or buying another computer altogether?”)*
*Note: the top comment of the Quora reference cited in the remainder of the Office Action has a posting date of at most 11/10/2022 (three years prior to the listed access date 11/10/2025).
Regarding Claim 7, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMPLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw teaches the information handling system of claim 6 as referenced above.
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMPLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw does not teach:
further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code instructions of the purchase recommendation module to indicate the identified purchasable hardware is a docking station comprising additional ports as the substitute to the first port that is damaged.
However, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMPLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, in further view of Quora teaches:
further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code instructions of the purchase recommendation module to indicate the identified purchasable hardware is a docking station comprising additional ports as the substitute to the first port that is damaged (Quora: Page 1, top comment: one user suggests plugging in a $10 USB hub into a working USB port to get more (USB ports) as a resolution to a broken USB port on a laptop).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, Shaw, and Quora by ordering a USB hub taught by Quora as the replacement hardware component taught by Shaw ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to save time, effort, and resources by using an adapter compared to fixing the broken USB port within the same computer (Quora: Page 1, top comment).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Ram (US 20240184345 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMELY in further view of TANAKA teaches the information handling system of claim 1, as referenced above.
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMELY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
wherein the first port that is damaged is a USB-C port.
However, Ram teaches:
wherein the first port that is damaged is a USB-C port ([0026]: USB-C port can be exposed to liquid and corroded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to perform a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0068], [0071]: damaged generic port) for another (Ram: [0026]: damaged USB-C port) to obtain predictable results (damaged port).
Regarding Claim 16, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the method of claim 9, as referenced above.
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
wherein the first port that is damaged is a USB-C port.
However, Ram teaches:
wherein the first port that is damaged is a USB-C port ([0026]: USB-C port can be exposed to liquid and corroded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to perform a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0068], [0071]: damaged generic port) for another (Ram: [0026]: damaged USB-C port) to obtain predictable results (damaged port).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, and in further view of PEARCE et al. (US 20210216329 A1, hereinafter “PEARCE”).
Regarding Claim 13, VENTRAKAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising:
executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code of the port identification and guidance module to gather baseline port mapping data… (VENKATRAMAN: [0071]: connection management system 210 modifies a port status mapping to indicate that the port is damaged. To perform the update, connection management system 210 effectively gathers the port status mapping).
VENTRAKAMEN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
…gather baseline port mapping from a remote management server via a wireless interface adapter operatively coupled to a network
However, PEARCE teaches:
…gather baseline port mapping from a remote management server ([0049]: peripheral devices 106 can be connected to the computing device 102 via USB port, serial port, parallel port. When a new peripheral device 106 is plugged into computing device 102, device type detection module 214 accesses a peripheral to device type mapping table profile 128, which is externally accessed via the central server 118) via a wireless interface adapter operatively coupled to a network ([0049]: accessing the peripheral to device type mapping table 128 may be done via API call made to the central server 119 requesting to pull down the mapping table 128 onto local storage. The API is interpreted as a wireless interface adapter. To connect to the server, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a network is needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and PEARCE by implementing the mapping profile retrieval taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a source of a port map (PEARCE: [0049]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, and in further view of Quora.
Regarding Claim 14, VENTRAKAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA teaches the method of claim 9, as referenced above.
VENTRAKAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA does not teach:
further comprising:
executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code of a purchase recommendation module to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data and the hardware telemetry data for hardware component functions to match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged, wherein the purchasable hardware is a docking station comprising additional ports as the substitute to the first port that is damaged when other hardware components are operating according to specification in the hardware telemetry data.
However, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw teaches:
further comprising:
executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code of a purchase recommendation module (Shaw: Fig. 1 and [0019]: as depicted and described, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hardware failure module 42 is a software module containing executable-instructions by a processor) to generate a recommendation purchase order based on the baseline port mapping data (Shaw: [0019]: diagnostics code indicates hardware on which diagnostics was run (e.g., [0020]: e.g., 01 for modem). Diagnostics code identifies a specific hardware and its condition, thus interpreted as a mapping (i.e., maps an numeric identifier to a specific hardware) for a plurality of hardware included in IHS 14 (see Fig. 1)) and the hardware telemetry data for hardware component functions (Shaw: Fig. 1 and [0019]: IHS 14 is shown as hardware itself. The shipped hardware may also be based on telemetry data of the IHS such as operating system and version, driver versions, and hardware on which diagnostics was run) to match and identify purchasable hardware that can be used as a substitute to the first port that is damaged (Shaw: [0019]: confirms diagnostics codes of failed hardware component and automatically initiates shipment of a replacement part (i.e., automatically identifies and ships “purchasable hardware)” by a hardware shipper 44 to customer site 14 for the damaged hardware. [0017]: damaged hardware may be other network physical interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Shaw by implementing the automatic ordering taught by Shaw as part of the information indicating an action to be taken to repair a port having a status of damaged but repairable as taught by VENKATRAMAN ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the expense associated with service of an IHS failure (Shaw: [0011]).
VENTRAKAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw does not teach:
wherein the purchasable hardware is a docking station comprising additional ports as the substitute to the first port that is damaged when other hardware components are operating according to specification in the hardware telemetry data.
However, Quora teaches:
wherein the purchasable hardware is a docking station comprising additional ports as the substitute to the first port that is damaged when other hardware components are operating according to specification in the hardware telemetry data (Page 1, top comment: most laptops have more than one USB port (hardware telemetry data). A $10 USB hub may be plugged into a working USB to substitute a broken USB port on a laptop to get more [USB ports]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, Shaw, and Quora by ordering a USB hub taught by Quora as the replacement hardware component taught by Shaw ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to save time, effort, and resources by using an adapter compared to fixing the broken USB port within the same computer (Quora: Page 1, top comment).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, in further view of Quora, and in further view of Seo et al. (US 20210358289 A1, hereinafter “Seo”).
Regarding Claim 15, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in view of Shaw, and in further view of Quora teaches the method of claim 14, as referenced above.
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in view of Shaw, in further view of Quora does not teach:
further comprising:
executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code instructions of the purchase recommendation module to transmit to an internet technology decision maker (ITDM) operating an ITDM dashboard at a remote management server the recommendation purchase order with the identified purchasable hardware via a communication on an operatively coupled network.
However, Seo teaches:
further comprising:
executing, with the hardware processor, the computer-readable program code instructions of the purchase recommendation module ([0198]: server 400 is a purchase recommendation module as server 400 transmits link information related to purchasing the recommended battery. [0202]: present disclosure can be realized as processor-readable code) to transmit to an internet technology decision maker (ITDM) operating an ITDM dashboard at a remote management server the recommendation purchase order with the identified purchasable hardware (Fig. 1 and [0198]: server 400 transmits link information on a web page related to purchasing the recommended battery to the user’s portable terminal device (display apparatus 100 interpreted as a remote server). User device is an internet technology decision maker as the user selects link information to purchase the recommended battery. Dashboard is merely the display of the portable terminal device) via a communication on an operatively coupled network (Fig. 1 and [0037]: apparatus 100 and server 400 communicates via a network such as the Internet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, PAMLEY, TANAKA, Shaw, Quora, and Seo by implementing the server-user protocol to transmit hardware recommendations as taught by Seo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to purchase the recommended hardware on his/her own volition (Seo: [0198]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, and in further view of Yan.
Regarding Claim 18, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Shaw teaches the information handling system of claim 17, as referenced above, further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code instructions of an AI productivity tool software module to receive user-query input associated with operation of a peripheral device operatively coupled to the first port that is damaged (VEKATRAMAN: [0064]: user captures install image of the connector panel after connecting a cable to the identified port and provides the image to connection management system 210. [0065]-[0066]: connection management system 210 ([0056]: interpreted as an “AI productivity tool software module” as it includes a platform that utilizes a ML model) receives the image and validates that the installation by validating whether the status of the port changed from available to unavailable ([0046]: similar to Fig. 1E, where the port analysis model analyzes the image). [0067]-[0068]: connection management system 210 validates connection to the port. [0070]: later determined that the port connected to the cable failed the port connectivity test, which is interpreted as a “damaged port.” Therefore, connection system 210 containing port analysis module receives user-query input in the form of an installation image. The installation image is used to determine the operation of a peripheral device (cable) coupled to the first port that is (later discovered to be) damaged via port testing) and invoke a ML model algorithm to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities associated with the diagnostic subagent (VENKATRAMAN: [0065]: invokes port analysis model ([0022]: which is a ML model) to identify availability/unavailability of ports responsive to the user-inputted installation image. [0067]-[0071]: the responsive capabilities (availability/unavailability) are later further validated via port testing (conducted by connection management system 210, the interpreted diagnostic subagent – see above) and used to update port mapping (also conducted by connection management system 210, the interpreted port identification and guidance module – see above)), the port identification and guidance module executing the baseline mapping-to-text ML algorithm (VENKATRAMAN: [0065]-[0070]: in response to a failed port connectivity test, connection management system 210 provides a notification to the user containing information identifying another available port on the connector panel. [0094]: identification of another available port is performed using a trained machine learning model ([0092], [0056], [0022]: such as the port analysis model in connection management system 210)), and the purchase recommendation module that semantically or lexically match as responsive to the user-query input (Shaw: [0018]-[0019]: user inputs diagnostics code, which later causes hardware failure 42 to identify (match) and order a replacement hardware).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, and in further view of Shaw does not teach:
…invoke a plurality of ML model algorithms to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities…
However, Yan teaches:
…invoke a plurality of ML model algorithms to identify a plurality of responsive capabilities… (Lines 851-857: various classifiers and a XGBoost model is used to identify the root cause of a poor cable connection (e.g., bad cable connection, device overheating). Lines 156-157: classifier refers to neural network classifiers)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAM, PAMLEY, TANAKA, and Yan by implementing the ensemble model taught by Yan for port status identification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to analyze multiple features to detect different root causes of the anomaly and enhance confidence in the exact cause to ensure normal operation (Yan: lines 830-832 and 851-857).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, and in further view of LOUZOUN.
Regarding Claim 19, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw teaches the information handling system of claim 17, as referenced above, further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute the computer-readable program code instructions of the diagnostic subagent to detect the damage to the first port at the information handling system with an external loopback test (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: connection management system 210 transmit a signal to the testing device (e.g., user device 205) connected to an end of the cable extending from the port. User device 205 provides information indicating that the testing device received the signal back to the connection management system 210, completing an external loopback port test to detect damage to the port (see [0070]-[0071]: failed test indicates an unavailable and damaged port))… and a power test via a power management unit (PAMLEY: [0100]: enables/disables one or more USB ports which may have malfunctioned. Applies power to USB ports on a port-by-port basis and detects an overcurrent condition on one or more USB ports. Transmits feedback to attempt to clear the overcurrent condition. If the overcurrent cannot be cleared, one or more “defective” USB ports are locked out).
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw does not teach:
…detect the damage to the first port at the information handling system with an internal loopback test via execution of a port driver…
However, LOUZOUN teaches:
…detect the damage to the first port at the information handling system with an internal loopback test via execution of a port driver… ([0054]: port failure or unavailability can be detected by a teaming driver. Port failure can occur if alive loopback packets are not received (no response)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to perform a simple substitution of one known element (VENKATRAMAN: [0068]: external loopback testing) for another (LOUZOUN: [0054]: internal loopback testing via teaming driver) to produce predictable results (determine port failure).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw, and in further view of Seo.
Regarding Claim 20, VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw teaches the information handling system of claim 17, as referenced above.
VENKATRAMAN in view of PAMLEY, in further view of TANAKA, in further view of Shaw does not teach:
further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of the purchase recommendation module to transmit the recommendation purchase order to an internet technology decision maker (ITDM) operating an ITDM dashboard at a remote management server operatively coupled network.
However, Seo teaches:
further comprising:
the hardware processor to execute computer-readable program code instructions of the purchase recommendation module ([0198]: server 400 is a purchase recommendation module as server 400 transmits link information related to purchasing the recommended battery. [0202]: present disclosure can be realized as processor-readable code) to transmit the recommendation purchase order to an internet technology decision maker (ITDM) operating an ITDM dashboard at a remote management server (Fig. 1 and [0198]: server 400 transmits link information on a web page related to purchasing the recommended battery to the user’s portable terminal device (display apparatus 100 interpreted as a remote server). User device is an internet technology decision maker as the user selects link information to purchase the recommended battery. Dashboard is merely the display of the portable terminal device) operatively coupled network (Fig. 1 and [0037]: apparatus 100 and server 400 communicates via a network such as the Internet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine VENKATRAMAN, TANAKA, Shaw, and Seo by implementing the server-user protocol to transmit hardware recommendations as taught by Seo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to purchase the recommended hardware on his/her own volition (Seo: [0198]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding specification objections, amendments overcome the previously raised issues. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim objections, amendments overcome the previously raised issues with respect to claims 2, 10, and 20, and the objections have been withdrawn.
Examiner thanks the Applicant for noting the typo regarding Claim 18. “18” in the header should have been corrected to “20.” Claim 18 should not have been objected to as the claim properly abbreviates AI at the first occurrence unlike similar Claims 2 and 10, which re-abbreviates AI after having done so in the respective independent claims. Thus, Claim 18 should remain the same as the original claim.
Regarding 35 U.S.C 103, Applicant argues:
Pages 10-11: “The complicated system of Venkatraman requiring at least three separate physical devices, an image of the port and connector panel, and a service technician does not teach a computer information handling system self-diagnosing damage to its own side data ports formed in to its own side housing of that computer information handling system as claimed. Applicant amends the claims for further clarification of this aspect. The system of Venkatraman would not work with the claimed system and fails to meet the limitations of the same hardware processor executing code instructions for the diagnostics subagent of its own side data ports as well as accessing baseline port mapping of hardware components and ports within that information handling system for devices to be connected to the information handling system, not ports of a connector panel for pass through to other devices to create circuits among this plurality of other devices in a data center as in Venkatraman.”
Page 11: “Examiner acknowledges that Venkatraman does not teach a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and data storage device supporting power on this information formation handling system for the claimed system of onboard side data port damage diagnostics, machine learning assessment, and remedy system as claimed. Office Action at p. 6. This makes sense in that Venkatraman teaches a system and method for identifying and verifying operation of a data center connector panel from a separate remote connection management system 210 to a service technician deployed with a user diagnostic device 205 to find and manually service a port on the data center connector panel in the data center. No self- diagnosis of side data ports on a computer information handling system was contemplated by Venkatraman. Examiner cites to Pamley for this PMU, but Pamley fails to otherwise meet the missing aspects of Venkatraman described above.”
Page 11: “Examiner acknowledges that Venkatraman does not teach baseline mapping-to-text machine learning (ML) algorithm to generate user-guided text describing which port to use in lieu of the first port that is damaged. Office Action at pp. 6-7. The Examiner cites to Tanaka which teaches a mapping image system to guide a flying vehicle, e.g. flying drone, to a landing port and again does not contemplate or relate to self-diagnosis of side data ports on a computer information handling system of the system as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to A-B, Examiner agrees that the connection management system 110 of Venkatraman does not diagnose its own connection panel. However, Pamley teaches a system of diagnosing its own connector panel (Fig. 1, 5; [0088]; [0100]). Thus, a revised rejection has been made in light of Pamley using a simple substitution for the motivation statement. Please see above for more detail.
With respect to C, in response to applicant's argument that Tanaka is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, both Venkatraman and Tanaka are directed towards the problem of instructing a user to use an alternative object. Venkatraman discloses providing a notification to the user identifying another available port on the connector panel and providing a recommendation to not use the (defective computing) port to establish a circuit and identifying an available port that can be used to establish the circuit ([0070]; [0094]). However, it is unclear whether the notification and recommendation are provided as text, audio, or an image. On the other hand, Tanaka teaches providing a recommendation to use an alternative (flight) port as text and an image. Thus, the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding further arguments of 35 U.S.C. 103 on Pages 12-22, the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained such that the rejections of the respective dependent claims are also maintained. Arguments relating to independent claims 9 and 17 are similar to that of Claim 1, and are rejected in a similar manner. Thus, the rejections of the respective dependent claims are also maintained or revised in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 (571) 272-0631. 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights