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 .
Claim Objections
Independent claim 8 is followed by claim 7 and therefore objected to because of the following informalities: After claim 6 – the listing of claims skips claim 7 – note 6 to 8 and further the numbered claimed ‘7’ should be dependent claim ‘6’. The same error for claim 2 but is listed as the second claim 1. Independent claim 14 should be listed as Independent claim 16. All of the dependencies or numbering from Independent claim 1 and/or Independent 8 and/or Independent claim 14 (16) are wrong and appropriate correction is required. There are only 18 claims listed however Examiner has added for reference claims (19) and (20) which are actually listed as claims 17 and 18.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 (19 and 20) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Huang et al., (US 2010/0235833) and Chein (US 2021/0286692), sited in IDS filed on 10/16/23.
It has been noted that, a claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art are "such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); KSRInt'lr. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007); Graham v.John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966).
In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is bottomed on several basic factual inquiries: "[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved." 383 U.S. at 17. See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more; than yield predictable results." KSR, at 1739.
"When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 1740.
"For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." Id.
"Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." Id. 11742.
As per claim 1, Huang teaches a method for powering up a network device (Fig. 3, 302, [0059-0060]), the method comprising: powering (Fig. 4, note step 402, [0068-0069]) on the network device on the network device, generating a first signal indicative of a first setting (Fig. 4, step 406, [0069-0070]); in a programmable component (Fig. 1, 112, [0044-0045]) of the network device;
subsequent to generating the first signal (Fig.3, steps 304-306-312, [0058-0060), generating a presence signal indicative of presence (Fig. 4, step 406, [0072-0075]) of one or more first electronic devices of the network device associated with the first setting (Huang [0058, note Fig. 4] discloses “Hardware ID store 310 is a small non-volatile memory in which information relating to the physical aspects of the Secure Compute Host 102 is stored. The Module Control Processor 312 can read this information to determine specific capabilities of the hardware, for example processor type, memory size, type of the PCI-Devices 204, etc. The Module Control Processor 312 checks the information in the Hardware ID store 310 on power-up, and on demand during system diagnostics, or when the secure compute host has first been discovered as present within the system. This information is also sent to the System Controller 112 which may use it as part of a compatibility check when it selects a physical server to instantiate a virtual server image…” – the first setting); and subsequent to generating the presence signal, enabling operation of the one or more first electronic devices of the network device and disabling (Huang, note the BIOS image or/and PCI device image or/and virtual server identity that is not connected by the components noted in Fig.3, 304-306-312 is disconnected in the sense, [0058-0060] – a type of presence signal) operation of any second electronic device of the network device associated with a second setting.
In regards to a subsequent to generating the presence signal and further enabling and disabling operations, in another related art Chein also discloses using different boot and BIOS images depending on different hardware configurations. Specifically, Chein uses two different UEFI BIOSs 120 (Fig.3) wherein only one is active at any time (Chein, Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726,[0061], “..resource table for peripheral devices is a software structure that includes the hardware device information for devices connected to the PCIe slot to allow for enabling or disabling such devices without effecting general function of the root controller. The routine then determines whether a disable request relating to the peripheral IO device should be initiated (730). For example, the routine may decide to initiate a disable request if the hardware device on the resource table has numerous uncorrected errors record..” or NOTE Fig. 8, steps 814 and 816, [0064] “…routine then reads the UEFI variable (810). Based on the read UEFI variable, the routine determines whether the routine is the factory provision boot option (812). If the selected option is not the factory provision boot option, the routine starts the POST with another one of the boot options (814). If the factory provision boot option is selected (812), the routine loads the present firmware configuration to the UEFI variable (816)”) and the other images are disconnected. (Chein, [0047-0051])
At the time the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to combine the teachings as set forth in this Office action stating the ‘disconnection” of a second boot personality (boot/BIOS images) disclosed by Chein with the boot options of Huang would reduce system downtime after firmware faults by including multiple boot options that to facilitate rapid booting of a network device. (Chein, [0001, 0005-0008])
As per claim (1) 2, Huang teaches further comprising enabling operation of the one or more first electronic devices concurrently with disabling operation of any second electronic device of the network device. (Huang teaches disconnecting at least one of one or more second components in the network device associated - note the BIOS image or/and PCI device image or/and virtual server identity that is not connected by the components noted in Fig.3, 304-306-312 is disconnected in the sense, [0058-0060])
As per claim (2) 3, Huang-Chein teaches wherein the one or more first electronic devices comprises a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC). (Huang note Fig. 2, 214, Chein Fig. 1, 110)
As per claim (3) 4, Huang-Chein teaches wherein the one or more first electronic devices comprises a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and a system control device (SCD). (Huang, Fig. 2, 208 and Chein [0037,0043,0065])
As per claim (4) 5, Huang-Chein teaches further comprising booting up a first operating system (OS) configured to operate with the first electronic devices. (Huang, virtual service identity, [0056-0057, Fig. 3, 302] further discloses an OS, [0032-0033, 0065])
As per claim (5) 6, Huang-Chein teaches wherein the second electronic devices are used by a second OS different from the first OS. (Huang, Figs. 3 and 4, [0058-0075], Chein Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726)
As per claim 6, these limitation in the claim are very similarly to claim 1 except the use of powering on the network device is a result of power cycling the network device, the method further comprising configuring the programmable component to generate the first signal prior to power cycling the network device. (Huang [0058, note Fig. 4] discloses “Hardware ID store 310 is a small non-volatile memory in which information relating to the physical aspects of the Secure Compute Host 102 is stored. The Module Control Processor 312 can read this information to determine specific capabilities of the hardware, for example processor type, memory size, type of the PCI-Devices 204, etc. The Module Control Processor 312 checks the information in the Hardware ID store 310 on power-up, and on demand during system diagnostics, or when the secure compute host has first been discovered as present within the system. toggling between the second boot personality whereas the steps in claim 1 is directed to configuration the programmable component for the second boot personality and toggling a second signal whereas claim 1 teaches toggling a first signal. Therein, the rejection of claim 1 based on the combination of Huang with Chein applies to the method steps of claim 6. (see the rejection to claim 1 above)
As per claim 8, Huang teaches a network device (Fig. 3, 302, [0059-0060]) comprising: a first set of one or more electronic devices (Huang, virtual service identity, [0056-0057, Fig. 3, 302] further discloses an OS, [0032-0033, 0065]); a second set of one or more electronic devices(Huang, Figs. 3 and 4, [0058-0075], Chein Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726); and a programmable component that is configurable to output a first signal or a second signal in response to the network device (Huang Fig. 4, step 406, [0069-0070] in a programmable component Fig. 1, 112, [0044-0045]) of the network device being powered on (Huang Fig. 4, note step 402, [0068-0069]), wherein operation of the first electronic devices is enabled and operation of the second electronic devices is disabled in response to the programmable component outputting the first signal, (Huang teaches disconnecting at least one of one or more second components in the network device associated - note the BIOS image or/and PCI device image or/and virtual server identity that is not connected by the components noted in Fig.3, 304-306-312 is disconnected in the sense, [0058-0060]) wherein operation of the first electronic devices is disabled and operation of the second electronic devices is enabled in response to the programmable component outputting the second signal. (Chein, Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726,[0061], “..resource table for peripheral devices is a software structure that includes the hardware device information for devices connected to the PCIe slot to allow for enabling or disabling such devices without effecting general function of the root controller. The routine then determines whether a disable request relating to the peripheral IO device should be initiated (730)) At the time the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to combine the teachings as set forth in this Office action stating the ‘disconnection” of a second boot personality (boot/BIOS images) disclosed by Chein with the boot options of Huang would reduce system downtime after firmware faults by including multiple boot options that to facilitate rapid booting of a network device. (Chein, [0001, 0005-0008])
As per claim 8 (9), Huang-Chein teaches wherein enabling operation of first electronic devices occurs concurrently with disabling operation of the second electronic devices. (Huang teaches disconnecting at least one of one or more second components in the network device associated - note the BIOS image or/and PCI device image or/and virtual server identity that is not connected by the components noted in Fig.3, 304-306-312 is disconnected in the sense, [0058-0060])
As per claim 8 (9), Huang-Chein teaches wherein operation of first electronic devices is enabled in response to the programmable component outputting the first signal and in response to occurrence of a signal indicating the presence of the first electronic devices. (Huang teaches disconnecting at least one of one or more second components in the network device associated - note the BIOS image or/and PCI device image or/and virtual server identity that is not connected by the components noted in Fig.3, 304-306-312 is disconnected in the sense, [0058-0060])
As per claim 9 (10), Huang-Chein teaches wherein disabling operation of first electronic devices occurs concurrently with enabling operation of the second electronic devices. (Chein, Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726,[0061], “..resource table for peripheral devices is a software structure that includes the hardware device information for devices connected to the PCIe slot to allow for enabling or disabling such devices without effecting general function of the root controller. The routine then determines whether a disable request relating to the peripheral IO device should be initiated (730))
As per claim 10, Huang-Chein teaches wherein the first electronic devices comprises a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC). (Huang note Fig. 2, 214, Chein Fig. 1, 110)
As per claim 11, Huang-Chein teaches wherein the second electronic devices comprises a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and a system control device (SCD). (Huang, Fig. 2, 208 and Chein [0037,0043,0065])
As per claim 12, Huang-Chein teaches further comprising a computer-readable storage device having stored thereon a first operating system (OS) configured to operate with the first electronic devices and a second OS configured to operate with the second electronic devices, (Huang, Figs. 3 and 4, [0058-0075], Chein Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726) wherein the first OS is booted up in response to the programmable component outputting the first signal, wherein the second OS is booted up in response to the programmable component outputting the second signal. (Huang [0058, note Fig. 4] discloses “Hardware ID store 310 is a small non-volatile memory in which information relating to the physical aspects of the Secure Compute Host 102 is stored. The Module Control Processor 312 can read this information to determine specific capabilities of the hardware, for example processor type, memory size, type of the PCI-Devices 204, etc. The Module Control Processor 312 checks the information in the Hardware ID store 310 on power-up, and on demand during system diagnostics, or when the secure compute host has first been discovered as present within the system.)
As per claim 13, Huang-Chein teaches wherein the programmable component is configured by directly accessing the programmable component through a direct physical connection to the network device. (Huang, Figs. 3 and 4, [0058-0075], Chein Fig. 7, steps 716 and 726)
As per claims 14-18 (19 and 20), see the rejection for claims 1-13 above.
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c). 3. Kalla et al., (US 12,197,923) is the related parent case.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMARA R PEYTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, EST M-F. 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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 February 13, 2026