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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202510018578.8, filed on January 6, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the OS from the OS installation image file" in lines 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claims 2-5, these claims are also rejected as depending on the rejected base claim 1 without remediate the identified issue above.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang et al. (US 11513786 B2) in view of Allu et al. (US 9,262,257 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Juang teaches An information handling system comprising: at least one processor (Juang, Fig 9, 930 [Processor]; and a memory (Juang, Fig 9. 904 – [Memory]); wherein the information handling system is a node of an information handling system cluster (Juang, Fig. 1, multiple rack servers) and is configured to:
retrieve at least one first portion of an operating system (OS) installation image file via a management network (Juang, Cols. 2, lines 40-42:” The deployment server sends a bootable disk image via virtual media redirection through the management network.”; Fig 3, Step 7, Download boot image);
retrieve at least one second portion of the OS installation image file from another node of the information handling system cluster via a data network (Juang Col. 2, lines 42-26: “The deployment server sends an upgrade framework to upload at least one firmware image associated with one of the hardware components through the data network to the remote server.”; Fig.3 Step 8 – Download rootfs, Step 9 - Download firmware update pack);
combine the at least one first portion and the at least one second portion into the OS installation image file (Fig. 3, Step 7 - Boot, Fig. 3, Step 8 - Boot to live OS; Fig. 3 Step 9 – Run firmware update process. e.g. The combined actions of step 7 and 8, and 9 cause complete OS installation and update of the node);
boot from the OS installation image file; and install the OS from the OS installation image file (Fig. 3, Step 7 - Boot, Fig. 3, Step 8 - Boot to live OS; Fig. 3 Step 9 – Run firmware update process).
Juang does not teach wherein the data network is higher-speed than the management network.
Allu teaches wherein the data network is higher-speed than the management network (Ravindranath, Pg. 11, col 4, lines 60-66:” Further, the cluster network 170 is a high-speed network that provides communication capabilities at a higher speed than that of the management network 160. For instance, the management network 160 provides communications at about 1 gigabit per second whereas the cluster network 170 is capable of communications at more than 1 gigabit per second (e.g., 10 gigabits per second or higher).”);
Juang and Allu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both information handling system and imaging of server in cluster environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Allu “the data network is higher-speed than the management network “ into the teachings of Huang in order to distinguish the speed difference between management and data network for better utilization of network speed.
Regarding claim 5, Juang teaches The information handling system of The information handling system of wherein the at least one first portion is retrieved by a management controller of the information handling system (Juang Col. 2, lines 47-50: “A further implementation of the example system is an embodiment where the baseboard management controller receives the virtual media redirection through the management network”).
Regarding claim 6, Juang teaches The information handling system of The information handling system of wherein the management controller is a baseboard management controller (BMC) (Juang, Col. 2, lines 35-37: “A target server includes different hardware components and a baseboard management controller.”).
Claim 7,11,12 correspond to method claims of the information handling system claims 1,5,6; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the system claims 1,5,6 respectively as shown above.
Claim 13, 17,18 correspond to non-transitory computer readable medium claims of the information handling system claims 1, 5, 6; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the system claims 1,5,6 respectively as shown above.
Claim 2, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang et al. (US 11513786 B2) in view of Allu et al. (US 9,262,257 B2) and in further view of Huang (US 20210382738 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Juang in view of Allu do not teach The information handling system of The information handling system of wherein the information handling system cluster is a hyper- converged infrastructure.
However, Huang teaches wherein the information handling system cluster is a hyper- converged infrastructure. (Huang, Pg. 1, [0001]: “The present disclosure relates in general to information handling systems, and more particularly to imaging of servers in a cluster environment such as a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCl) cluster.”).
Juang in view of Allu and Huang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both information handling system and imaging of servers in cluster environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Huang into the teachings of Juang and Allu in order expand the utilization of the method by “porting” the method to difference environments such as HCI cluster.
Claim 8 corresponds to method claims of the information handling system claims 2; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale in the system claims 2 as shown above.
Claim 14 corresponds to non-transitory computer readable medium claims of the information handling system claims 2; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale in the system claims 2 as shown above.
Claim 3-4, 9-10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang et al. (US 11513786 B2) in view of Allu et al. (US 9,262,257 B2) and in further view of Gambardella et al. (US 9804901 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Juang in view of Allu do not teaches The information handling system of The information handling system of wherein the at least one first portion is retrieved from a file transfer protocol (FTP) server coupled to the management network.
Gambardella teaches wherein the at least one first portion is retrieved from a file transfer protocol (FTP) server coupled to the management network (Gambardella, Col. 15, lines 29-37: “If verified, the disk image is made available to main computer 130 from management computer 126 by means of a protocol, such as trivial file transfer protocol (TFTP), for example, or other PXE compatible data distribution protocol, over the controller node's internal network. In one example embodiment, an intermediate network bootloader capable of HTTP and other communication protocols in delivered to main computer 130 from management computer 126 by means of TFTP”);
Juang in view of Allu and Gambardella are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both information handling system and imaging of servers in cluster environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Gambardella into the teachings of Juang in view of Allu in view of Huang in order expand the efficiency of the method by utilizing FTP in transmitting OS images and files.
Regarding claim 4, The information handling system of The information handling system of wherein the FTP server is not connected to the data network. (As noted in claim 3 rejection above Gambardella teaches at least one first portion is retrieved from a file transfer protocol (FTP) server coupled to the management network. Therefore, the FTP server is either not connected to the data network or not utilized.)
Claim 9 -10 correspond to method claims of the information handling system claims 3-4; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the system claims 3-4 as shown above.
Claim 15-16 correspond to non-transitory computer readable medium claims of the information handling system claims 3-4; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the system claims 3-4 as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140325140 A1 discloses The computer receives, in a logical partition (LPAR) via a management network, a deploy program configured to download a disk image from an image repository and to write the disk image to a first direct access storage device (DASD) of the LPAR. The computer receives, in the LPAR via a data network, the disk image, and writes, to the first DASD of the LPAR, the disk image.
US 11748113 B2 discloses The system includes a server and rack controller, including one or more processors to generate an imaging service comprising an OS image container, transmit data via a first network to initiate a boot up process at a server and download an OS image included in the OS image container via a second network, wherein the second network is separate from the first network.
US 11334342 B1 discloses create a bootable medium comprising the operating system and the vendor update package; trigger a first reboot of the information handling system into the operating system of the bootable medium, wherein the bootable medium is configured to install the vendor update package; and trigger a second reboot of the information handling system into the currently installed operating system of the information handling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0332. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 5712723721. 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.
/THUAN HUU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights