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 .
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the term “the server” is indefinite because two instances of servers were declared earlier, and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested the claim be amended to “in response to [[a]] the server starting and operating normally”.
For claims 2-20, the term “the step” and “the steps” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested that either claim 1 be amended to “the method comprises the steps of :” or claims 2-20 be amended to “wherein the [[step of]]…” and “implementing [[the steps of]] the method”.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all 35 USC § 112 rejections are overcome.
Reasons for Allowability
The claims were objected for being allowed because although prior art has been found to teach the limitations, it was not taught in a manner that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine it as an obvious inclusion.
For claims 3 and 7, heat and power were found to be taught but not their ratio.
For claim 8, fluctuations in heat, power, and usage were found to be taught but not for calculating for decisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 1-2, 4-6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 2021/0405097 A1), in view of Keshawani (US 2023/0289253 A1), and further in view of Guim Bernat (US 2023/0393956 A1).
For claim 1,
Campbell teaches a method for configuring server maintainability, wherein a server used in the method comprises a baseboard management controller and a central processing unit, the method comprises: (see abstract, paragraphs [0005], [0012}, [0018]: server includes BMC and processors configured to perform instructions, among which maintaining metering data) calculating, by the baseboard management controller, a first utilization rate of the central processing unit, in response to a server starting and operating normally; (see abstract , [0013], and other locations: BMCs, by definition, monitor for health continuously in real time hardware components including processors; continuously include during normal and abnormal conditions; calculating includes percentage as in [0013] or enhanced buffering as in [0021]) determining, by the baseboard management controller, a fault component []; calculating, by the baseboard management controller, a second utilization rate of the central processing unit; (see abstract , [0013], and rational above: monitoring is continuous) determining, by the baseboard management controller, a service migration state based on the first utilization rate and the second utilization rate; (see [0036]: failover is migration) []; and isolating, by the baseboard management controller, the fault component in the server configuration mode (see [0022]: view determining root cause as said isolating)
Campbell does not explicitly teach “in response to the server crashing and restarting”.
However, Keshawani teaches “in response to the server crashing and restarting” (see abstract, [0003], and other locations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell to include “in response to the server crashing and restarting”, as taught by Keshawani, because each one of Campbell and Keshawani teach servers with BMC therefore they are analogous arts and because systems that fail can occasionally crash and once they do, they reset (see abstract, [0003], and other locations).
The combination of Campbell and Keshawani does not explicitly teach “switching, by the baseboard management controller, a server configuration mode according to the service migration state”.
However, Guim Bernat teaches “switching, by the baseboard management controller, a server configuration mode according to the service migration state” (see abstract, [0013], and other locations: switching between NIDs and modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Campbell and Keshawani to include “switching, … migration state”, as taught by Guim Bernat, because each one of Guim Bernat, Campbell, and Keshawani teach servers with BMC therefore they are analogous arts and because failover means switching to a different component and thus mode (see abstract, [0013], and other locations).
For claims 18-19,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claim 1. Claim 18 is a device and claim 19 is a medium.
For claim 2,
The combination of Campbell, Keshawani, and Guim Bernat teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Campbell further teaches the step of calculating, by the baseboard management controller, the first utilization rate of the central processing unit comprises: reading power consumption data and unit heat data of the central processing unit; and determining the first utilization rate according to the power consumption data and the unit heat data (see [0012])
Guim Bernat further teaches the step of calculating, by the baseboard management controller, the first utilization rate of the central processing unit comprises: reading power consumption data and unit heat data of the central processing unit; and determining the first utilization rate according to the power consumption data and the unit heat data (see [0019])
For claim 4,
The combination of Campbell, Keshawani, and Guim Bernat teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Keshawani further teaches the step of determining, by the baseboard management controller, the fault component, in response to the server crashing and restarting comprises: reading error information, in response to the server crashing and restarting; and determining that a component corresponding to the error information is the fault component (see [0026], [0035], and other locations: stop or trap error causing crash).
For claim 5,
The combination of Campbell, Keshawani, and Guim Bernat teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above.
Keshawani further teaches before the step of reading the error information, the step of determining the fault component, in response to the server crashing and restarting further comprises: waiting for a preset duration to enter a basic input/output system of the server (see [0035]: sanity check timer before reboot which goes through BIOS).
For claim 6,
The combination of Campbell, Keshawani, and Guim Bernat teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Campbell and Guim further teaches the step of calculating, by the baseboard management controller, the second utilization rate of the central processing unit comprises: reading power consumption data and unit heat data of the central processing unit; and determining the second utilization rate according to the power consumption data and the unit heat data (see rejection to claim 2: determination for failover is for all monitored values).
For claim 20,
The combination of Campbell, Keshawani, and Guim Bernat teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Guim further teaches the unit heat data refers to an indicator of heat release of a processor (see [0019 and [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights