The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Claim(s) 1-13 has/have been examined.Claim(s) 1-13 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jau does not disclose directing messages based on a physical association between a device and a specific port or cable within a testing frame and does not disclose the claimed physical topology-based routing. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claim recites cables connected to the devices, this physical layout is shown in Jau (Figure 1), while the cabinets for the devices are obvious in view of Longbottom. Besides each device being associated with respective cabling and ports, which Jau shows, no specific routing process has been claimed that excludes MAC address based networking.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0301575) in view of "Data Centre Design: Using Engineered Racks, Pods and Containers" by Clive Longbottom (herein Longbottom) and Lee (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0168926).
Regarding claim 1, Jau discloses an apparatus comprising: a testing frame comprising:
a plurality of cabinets, each of the plurality of cabinets housing one of a plurality of computing devices under test (Figure 1 shows a server rack 112 including multiple rack mounted servers 118; each of the units of space available to a server is considered a cabinet because Applicant's specification (paragraph 16) points to cabinets 104 of Applicant's Figure 1, which shows each cabinet is just a partitioned space for a server), the plurality of cabinets comprising at least a first row of cabinets and a second row of cabinets (Figure 1, server 118a is in a different row from server 118b), wherein the second row of cabinets is positioned above the first row of cabinets (Figure 1 shows servers 118a and 118b being positioned one above the other); and
a testing computing device, wherein the testing computing device is communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of computing devices under test (Figure 1, the test device); and
wherein the testing computing device is configured to transmit messages to the plurality of computing devices under test via one or more hubs (Figure 1 element 110 and paragraph 25, a switch connects testing device to server 106 to servers 118; paragraphs 35 and 38, the servers have their connectivity verified), each of the plurality of computing devices being associated with a respective port or cable of the one or more hubs within the testing frame (Figure 1 and paragraph 39, each switch port connects to a corresponding server);
a monitor and a shelf for a keyboard, wherein the monitor and the keyboard are communicatively coupled to the testing computing device (paragraph 45, a display device and keyboard are connected as input devices to the test device or the server management system);
wherein each of the plurality of computing devices is associated with a corresponding port of a hub via a dedicated cable (Figure 1 and paragraph 39, each switch port connects to a corresponding server; the figure shows some dedicated cabling for each server), and the testing computing device directs the messages based on the corresponding port of the hub (paragraphs 32-34, test message is sent through the switch).
Jau does not expressly disclose the apparatus wherein the testing computing device is housed in a control cabinet and each of the plurality of computing devices is physically housed in a respective cabinet.
Longbottom teaches use of containers within data centers.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server testing system disclosed by Jau such that the server racks and the testing device are contained within containers, as taught by Longbottom. This modification would have been obvious because containers allow for easy vendor replacement and environmental control (Longbottom, section Upgrading Modules and Containers).
Jau does not expressly disclose the apparatus comprising a bracket that secures a monitor and a shelf for a keyboard.
Lee teaches a display and keyboard assembly that is attached to a server cabinet via support brackets (Figure 1).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server testing system disclosed by Jau such that the server housing includes a display and keyboard mounted assembly, as taught by Lee. This modification would have been obvious because many information handling systems provide a keyboard-display component mounted to a data center rack to allow a user to interact with the system (Lee paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 9-10, Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee discloses:
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the testing frame comprises a networking cabinet housing at least one hub, wherein the testing computing device is communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of computing devices under test through the at least one hub (Jau Figure 1, switch 110).
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the testing computing device is connected to the at least one hub using a first cable, and each of the plurality of computing devices under test are connected to the at least one hub using a corresponding second cable (Jau Figure 1 shows test device connected to the switch 110 via a first connector, and the switch 110 is connected to server ports by network cables 114; also described in paragraph 21).
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the testing computing device is configured to identify each of the plurality of computing devices based on data stored in a memory device that maps each of the plurality of computing devices to a network address of the corresponding second cable (Jau Figure 1, the system includes multiple servers in a rack, paragraphs 20 and 21 describe how each has an identifiable MAC address. Use of a memory that maps MAC addresses to desired devices is implied by the use of MAC addresses as identifiers).
5. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the testing computing device is configured to identify each of the plurality of computing devices based on data stored in a memory device that maps each of the plurality of computing devices to a corresponding port of the at least one hub (Jau Figure 1 and paragraphs 20 and 21, each server in the rack has mapped switch ports for messaging and connecting to a management system; a memory that maps the devices is implied by the use of switch ports).
9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the testing computing device is configured to determine a status of each of the plurality of computing devices, and provide the status to the monitor for display (Jau paragraph 18 and Figure 2, a GUI provides system statuses to a user).
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the testing computing device is configured to provide a graphical user interface to the monitor for display, where the graphical user interface allows for a selection of one or more operations to be executed by the testing computing device for the plurality of computing devices under test (Jau paragraphs 18 and 30 and Figure 2, a GUI provides system statuses to a user and allows a user to select a diagnostic command to run).
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee and in further view of Levin (US Patent 10,929,261).
Regarding claim 6, Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee does not expressly disclose the apparatus wherein the testing computing device is configured to transmit a delete user data message to each of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the delete user data message causes each of the plurality of computing devices to delete user data.
Levin teaches a diagnostic system for use in a data center that allows a remote technician to analyze and debug a data center device (column 2 lines 26-44). The system is capable of removing user data from a device to restore its default state (column 5 lines 54-61) removing an operating system from a device (column 11 lines 60-63) and installing or reinstalling program code including firmware, drivers or an operating system (column 2 lines 2-12).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center testing system disclosed by Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee such that a technician performs troubleshooting operations on data center devices, as taught by Levin. This modification would have been obvious because testing and diagnosing of hardware devices may allow restoring hardware devices to functioning states and returning the devices to service in the data center (Levin column 2 lines 28-39).
Regarding claim 7, Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee does not expressly disclose the apparatus wherein the testing computing device is configured to transmit a delete operating system message to each of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the delete operating system message causes each of the plurality of computing devices to delete a first operating system.
Levin teaches a diagnostic system for use in a data center that allows a remote technician to analyze and debug a data center device (column 2 lines 26-44). The system is capable of removing user data from a device to restore its default state (column 5 lines 54-61), removing an operating system from a device (column 11 lines 60-63) and installing or reinstalling program code including firmware, drivers or an operating system (column 2 lines 2-12).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center testing system disclosed by Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee such that a technician performs troubleshooting operations on data center devices, as taught by Levin. This modification would have been obvious because testing and diagnosing of hardware devices may allow restoring hardware devices to functioning states and returning the devices to service in the data center (Levin column 2 lines 28-39).
Regarding claim 8, Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee does not expressly disclose the apparatus wherein the testing computing device is configured to transmit an operating system install message to each of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the operating system install message causes each of the plurality of computing devices to install a second operating system.
Levin teaches a diagnostic system for use in a data center that allows a remote technician to analyze and debug a data center device (column 2 lines 26-44). The system is capable of removing user data from a device to restore its default state (column 5 lines 54-61) removing an operating system from a device (column 11 lines 60-63) and installing or reinstalling program code including firmware, drivers or an operating system (column 2 lines 2-12).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center testing system disclosed by Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee such that a technician performs troubleshooting operations on data center devices, as taught by Levin. This modification would have been obvious because testing and diagnosing of hardware devices may allow restoring hardware devices to functioning states and returning the devices to service in the data center (Levin column 2 lines 28-39).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee and in further view of "User Guide Secure Configuration Manager" by NetIQ (herein NetIQ).
Regarding claim 11, Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee does not expressly disclose the apparatus wherein one or more of the plurality of computing devices under test are of a first type, and one or more of the plurality of computing devices under test are of a second type.
NetIQ teaches a security configuration management system (page 13) wherein various network endpoints are categorized into types based on their type of platform; the type is used for creating groups of endpoints which can be managed as a group (page 20).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server rack system disclosed by Jau in view of Longbottom and Lee such that devices are categorized into types and managed as a group of a particular type, as taught by NetIQ. This modification would have been obvious because grouping of assets allows for grouping of high-risk assets and creating scheduling specifically for the more vulnerable systems (NetIQ page 28, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Jau in view of Longbottom, Lee and NetIQ discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more of the plurality of computing devices under test of the first type perform a first operation during a timeframe, and the one or more of the plurality of computing devices under test of the second type perform a second operation during the timeframe (NetIQ section 2.3, scheduling of policy templates to run against vulnerable system can be done on a group basis when all high-risk assets are grouped together).
Regarding claim 13, Jau in view of Longbottom, Lee and NetIQ discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the testing computing device causes the one or more of the plurality of computing devices under test of the first type to perform a first operation during a timeframe, and causes the one or more of the plurality of computing devices under test of the second type to perform a second operation during the timeframe (NetIQ section 2.4.4, updating can be performed for agents of a specific OS; the updating can be done for multiple system concurrently).
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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trialand-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-programindependent.
The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SCHELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8186. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9AM-5:00PM (Pacific Time).
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. Please note that all agendas or related documents that Applicant would like reviewed should be sent at least one full business day (i.e. 24 hours not including weekends or holidays) before the interview.
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. The fax phone number for the examiner is 571-273-8186. The examiner may be e-mailed at joseph.schell@uspto.gov though communications via e-mail are not permitted without a written authorization form (see MPEP 502.03).
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.
JS/JOSEPH O SCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
