DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 – 20 filed in this application Liu et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/976,430 (Filed December 11, 2024) (“Liu”).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on December 11, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The references listed therein have been considered, and placed in the application file.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing device” in claim 1, “BMC device” in, claims 4 and 6, various “systems” and “engine” in claims 7, 10, 11, and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0160431 (Published May 16, 2024, filed December 20, 2023) (“Kumar”) in view of Jreij, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0353641 (Publication November 2, 2023, filed April 28, 2022) (“Jreij”).
Claims 1, 7, and 14
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 14, Kumar teaches the invention as claimed an Out-Of-Band (OOB) component update system, comprising:
a computing device; a component included in the computing device; a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) device that is included in the computing device,/ and a BMC memory system that is coupled to the BMC processing system/ that is coupled to the component, and that is configured to: receive a component update request that includes a component update image that is configured to update the component, and a component update [plugin]; retrieve at least one runtime parameter for the computing device;/ that includes the component and a BMC device having the BMC processing system and the BMC memory system; / …to determine whether the component update image is compatible with the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device; prevent, in response to …determining that the component update image is not compatible with the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device, the updating of the component using the component update image; and allow, in response determining that the component update image is compatible with the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device, the updating of the component using the component update image. {BMC receives a BIOS firmware image update along with a script (plugin) and metadata parameters providing instructions to the BMC to verify the update using the parameters to determine if the update is to be permitted to be written to the target device and installed the update if validated or discards it if not validated. Kumar at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0043, 0044, 0047; id. at ¶¶ 0031 & 0033 (script); id. at ¶ 0026 (discard image on validation failure); id at ¶ 0030 (BIOS update) id. at fig. 7A.}
However, Kumar doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
execute the component update plugin… the execution of the component update plugin … to the execution of the component update plugin {Jreij does teach this limitation. Jreij teaches that using a BMC, update image, update script, and update parameters, to determine whether to install a BIOS firmware update as taught in Kumar, may include where a BMC plug-in, such as a CMS client plugin, may be received by the BMC, installed at the BMC, and used to validate the firmware update, for example, by creating a secure tunnel by which it may receive validated information on the location of the firmware update and send the update to BMC. Jreij at ¶¶ 0116, 0118, 0131, 0137, 0138; id. at fig. 6.
Kumar and Jreij are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to validate an upgrade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using a BMC, update image, update script, and update parameters, to determine whether to install a BIOS firmware update, as taught in Kumar, with using a BMC plugin, as taught in Jreij. Jreij teaches that system manufacturers may want to implement a BMC plugin. Id. at ¶ 0118. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using a BMC, update image, update script, and update parameters, to determine whether to install a BIOS firmware update, as taught in Kumar, with using a BMC plugin, as taught in Jreij, for the purpose of using known method to provide instructions and control to a BMC that manages updates with a method that requires using a BMC to manage an update process.}
Claims 2, 8, and 15
With respect to claims 2, 8, and 15, Kumar and Jreij teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the component is a Basic Input/Output System (BIOS). {BMC receives a BIOS firmware image update along with a script (plugin) and metadata parameters providing instructions to the BMC to verify the update using the parameters to determine if the update is to be permitted to be written to the target device and installed the update if validated or discards it if not validated. Kumar at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0043, 0044, 0047; id. at ¶¶ 0031 & 0033 (script); id. at ¶ 0026 (discard image on validation failure); id at ¶ 0030 (BIOS update) id. at fig. 7A.}
Claims 3, 9, and 16
With respect to claims 3, 9, and 16, Kumar and Jreij teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the allowing the updating of the component using the component update image includes causing a reboot of the computing device, and wherein the BIOS is configured to use a BIOS update image that provides the component update image to update the BIOS in response to the reboot of the computing device. {BMC receives a BIOS firmware image update along with a script (plugin) and metadata parameters providing instructions to the BMC to verify the update using the parameters to determine if the update is to be permitted to be written to the target device and installed the update if validated by setting the BIOS to reboot, or discards it if not validated. Kumar at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0043, 0044, 0047; id. at ¶¶ 0031 & 0033 (script); id. at ¶ 0026 (discard image on validation failure); id at ¶ 0030 (BIOS update) id. at fig. 7A.}
Claims 4, 10, and 17
With respect to claims 4, 10, and 17, Kumar and Jreij teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the BMC device is configured to: execute a BIOS update plugin that provides the component update plugin to determine {A BMC plug-in, such as a CMS client plugin, may be received by the BMC, installed at the BMC, and used to validate the firmware update, for example, by creating a secure tunnel by which it may receive validated information on the location of the firmware update and send the update to BMC. Jreij at ¶¶ 0116, 0118, 0131, 0137, 0138; id. at fig. 6.}
whether a BIOS update image that provides the component update image is compatible with a processing system that is included in the computing device and that is identified by the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device. {BMC receives a BIOS firmware image update along with a script (plugin) and metadata parameters providing instructions to the BMC to verify the update using the parameters to determine if the update is to be permitted to be written to the target device and installed the update if validated by setting the BIOS to reboot, or discards it if not validated. Kumar at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0043, 0044, 0047; id. at ¶¶ 0031 & 0033 (script); id. at ¶ 0026 (discard image on validation failure); id at ¶ 0030 (BIOS update) id. at fig. 7A.}
Claims 5, 12, and 19
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Kumar and Jreij teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the preventing the updating of the component using the component update image includes preventing the component update request from causing the component to become unavailable. {BMC receives a BIOS firmware image update along with a script (plugin) and metadata parameters providing instructions to the BMC to verify the update using the parameters to determine if the update is to be permitted to be written to the target device and installed the update if validated by setting the BIOS to reboot, or discards it if not validated without disabling the BIOS. Kumar at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0043, 0044, 0047; id. at ¶¶ 0031 & 0033 (script); id. at ¶ 0026 (discard image on validation failure); id at ¶ 0030 (BIOS update) id. at fig. 7A.}
Claims 6, 13, and 20
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, Kumar and Jreij teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the BMC device is configured to: authenticate the component update plugin. {A BMC plug-in, such as a CMS client plugin, may be received by the BMC, installed at the BMC, the CMS client plugin may be authenticated to the CMS inventory service which then communicates the authentication to the BMC in the form of an “ownership voucher,” at which point the plugin may be used to validate the firmware update, for example, by creating a secure tunnel by which it may receive validated information on the location of the firmware update and send the update to BMC. Jreij at ¶¶ 0116, 0118, 0131, 0137, 0138; id. at fig. 6; id. at ¶¶ 0131 - 0137.}
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Jreij and Stevens et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0027138 (Publication January 27, 2022, filed July 27, 2020) (“Stevens”).
Claims 11 and 18
With respect to claims 11 and 18, Kumar and Jreij teach the invention as claimed including:
execute a BIOS update [plugin] that provides the component update [plugin]to determine whether a BIOS update image that provides the component update image … BIOS update image providing a feature update to the BIOS … BIOS update image providing a security update to the BIOS {Metadata parameters providing instructions to the BMC to verify that the update is allowed to be written to the memory location. Kumar at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0043, 0044, 0047; id. at ¶¶ 0031 & 0033 (script); id. at ¶ 0026 (discard image on validation failure); id at ¶ 0030 (BIOS update) id. at fig. 7A; id. at ¶ 0036 (firmware updates include features such as bug/performance fixes, as well as security fixes).}
plugin {A BMC plug-in, such as a CMS client plugin, may be received by the BMC, installed at the BMC, and used to validate the firmware update, for example, by creating a secure tunnel by which it may receive validated information on the location of the firmware update and send the update to BMC. Jreij at ¶¶ 0116, 0118, 0131, 0137, 0138; id. at fig. 6.}
However, Kumar and Jreij doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
is compatible with a lockdown mode of the computing device that is identified by the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device; prevent, in response to the execution of the component update [plugin]determining that the [BIOS update image] is not compatible with the lockdown mode of the computing device based on the [BIOS update image providing a feature update to the BIOS] that is identified by the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device, the updating of the component using the component update image; and allow, in response to the execution of the component update [plugin]determining that the component update image is compatible with the lockdown mode of the computing device based on the …that is identified by the at least one runtime parameter for the computing device. {Stevens does teach this limitation. Stevens teaches that using a BMC and plug-in(s) to perform component updates, as taught by Kumar and Jreiji, may include where a BIOS firmware lockdown may be enforced to prevent in-band update attempts but the update may be permitted when an out-of-band update method is used including where certain firmware may be whitelisted. Stevens at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0073 – 0078 (whitelist); id. at pg. 6.
Kumar, Jreij, and Stevens are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to validate an upgrade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using a BMC and plug-in(s) to perform component updates, as taught in Kumar and Jreij, with allowing out-of-band whitelisted security updates even when in lockdown, as taught in Stevens. Stevens teaches that firmware changes may be required to resolve security issues. Id. at ¶ 0028. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using a BMC and plug-in(s) to perform component updates, as taught in Kumar and Jreij, with allowing out-of-band whitelisted security updates even when in lockdown, as taught in Stevens, for the purpose of using a known firmware update out-of-band whitelist with a method that requires updating firmware out-of-band using a BMC.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
//T.H./ September 30, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
