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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
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. 202211486018.8, filed on 11/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026 has been considered by the Examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim status
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16 and 18 have been amended. Claims 4 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 presented for the examination and remain pending in the application.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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, 2, 3, 6-9, 11-14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuwa et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0174659 A1 (hereinafter Takuwa) in view of Dharmadhikari et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0165183 A1, (hereinafter Dharmadhikari).
Regarding claim 1.
Takuwa teaches a method of device management, comprising: receiving a first configuration command at a first baseboard management controller (BMC) associated with a processor (Takuwa teaches in Fig. 1 and Para. [0038] a processor 202, the NICs 111 and 112, and the BMC 113. The memory 201 merely needs to be a semiconductor memory which the processor 202 can use), the first BMC being currently in a management network (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0112] it has been described that the management server 10 obtains failure information from the BMC 113 in the server 20…, the management server 10 requests the failure information to the chassis management module 80 through the network SW 60),
causing the first BMC to be dynamically configured to join the VLAN where a server is located according to the first configuration command, the processor being connected to the server (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0087] at first, the BMC 113 (see FIG. 1) in the server 20A sends a notification which indicates a in the server 20A to the boot management module 103 (see FIG. 1) in the management server 10. Then, the server management module 102 (see FIG. 1) in the management server 10 changes contents of the server management table 301 (see FIG. 5). For instance, the failure is stored for the status 407 corresponding to the server identifier (corresponding to Server1) of the server 20A where the failure has occurred and further Takuwa teaches in Para. [0088] the network SW (i.e., network switch) remote setting module 306 disconnects the server 20A where the failure has occurred from VLAN1 and then adds the server 20D to be newly used to VLAN1 referring to the changed server management table 301. For instance, corresponding values are deleted or added for the server identifier 411 and the VLAN ID 414 in the network management table 307. See also [0032] and [0034]);
in response to receiving a management command for the processor, forwarding, by the first BMC, the management command to the server via the VLAN (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0087] at first, the BMC 113 (see FIG. 1) in the server 20A sends a notification (i.e., sends a notification indicates that the process of forwarding a command) which indicates a in the server 20A to the boot management module 103 (see FIG. 1) in the management server 10… and further, Takuwa teaches in Para. [0088] that the network SW remote setting module 306 disconnects the server 20A where the failure has occurred from VLAN1 and then adds the server 20D to be newly used to VLAN1 referring to the changed server management table 301. For instance, corresponding values are deleted or added for the server identifier 411 and the VLAN ID 414 in the network management table 307);
receiving a second configuration command at the first BMC (note that here server element 20 which includes servers 20A, 20B and 20C with BMC. Takuwa teaches in Fig. at first, the BMC 113 (see FIG. 1) in the server 20A sends a notification which indicates a in the server 20A to the boot management module 103 (see FIG. 1) as narrated in Para. [0087]) and in Fig. 8 and Para. [0071] about the configuration of the security module 116 and server 20 and Takuwa also teaches in Para. [0078]-[0079] the command processor 109 sends information about the access from the server 20, to the security module 116); and
causing the first BMC to exit the VLAN according to the second configuration command (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0087] the BMC 113 (see FIG. 1) in the server 20A sends a notification which indicates a in the server 20A to the boot management module 103 (see FIG. 1) and further, Takuwa teaches in Para. [0088] that the network SW remote setting module 306 disconnects (i.e., disconnected from the VLAN1 indicates exit from the VLAN) the server 20A where the failure has occurred from VLAN1 and then adds the server 20D to be newly used to VLAN1…).
Takuwa does not explicitly teach the processor being in a virtual local area network (VLAN), and the management network and the VLAN being separated by a switch associated with the processor.
However, Dharmadhikari teaches the processor being in a virtual local area network (VLAN) (Dharmadhikari teaches in Figs. 1&4 and Para. [0029] a Host CPU and a BMC may belong to the same VLAN and IP subnet), and the management network and the VLAN being separated by a switch associated with the processor (Dharmadhikari teaches in Figs. 1-5 and Para. [0037] by virtue of the VLAN tag. In step 560 the network traffic is directed to host CPU 110 when the VLAN tag points to the host CPU…, according to step 550. Thus, data packets destined to host CPU 110 are separated from data packets destined to BMC 120 and further Dharmadhikari teaches in Para. [0038] in steps 520 and 530 the configuration of switch 130 include configuring ports in switch 130 for the different VLANs associated to either host CPU 110 or BMC 120…, a second port in switch 130 coupled to BMC 120 is configured for the VLAN associated with BMC 120, in step 530).
Therefore, Takuwa and Dharmadhikari are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to the configuration and managing the baseboard management controller BMC and CPU by separating the VLAN by using a switch.
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 teachings of using a switch to manage the BMC and CPU by separating from the VLAN (Figs. 1-5, [0029], [0037]-[0038]) as taught, by Dharmadhikari into the teachings of Takuwa invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the switch is easily reconfigurable by an IT administrator in the system through the network. The system offers reduced cost by allowing the switch to be cheaper than an enterprise grade network controller (NC)-sideband interface (SI) compatible NC. The switch provides firewall filters to ingress and egress the traffic through the system, IP address filtering for the ingress and egress traffic through the system and a processor circuit to perform algorithms on the ingress traffic to establish legitimacy of Internet source requesting access to the system, thus preventing denial of service (DOS) attacks on the system, and hence enhancing network security of the system. The system facilitates out-of-band management of the server and the switch without relying on expensive hardware that requires special software installation.
Regarding claim 2.
Takuwa teaches wherein the first configuration command indicates a joining configuration of the VLAN and a network forwarding configuration from the first BMC to the server (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0034] the network SW setting module 114 has functions to set a network (a network topology) such as VLAN. By means of the functions, the IP storage network SW 40 limits accesses to the disk array unit 50 which the server 20 can perform, so as to assure security and further, Takuwa teaches in Para. [0049] Which VLAN each of the servers 20 belongs to, and so on are managed by the network management table 307, which will be described in detail referring to FIG. 6 later. Also, see Para. [0054] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 3.
Takuwa teaches wherein receiving the first configuration command comprises: in response to a failure of the processor, receiving the first configuration command (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0044] the failure recovery module 302 receives a notification which indicates a failure from the BMC 113 and then recovers the server 20 from the failure…Alao, see Para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 6.
Takuwa teaches wherein receiving the second configuration command comprises:
in response to a recovery of a failure of the processor, receiving the second configuration command (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0044] the failure recovery module 302 receives a notification which indicates a failure from the BMC 113 and then recovers the server 20 from the failure. In the present embodiment, the failure recovery module 302 may reset the server 20, for instance).
Regarding claim 7.
Takuwa teaches wherein forwarding the management command to the server via the VLAN comprises: forwarding the management command to a second BMC associated with the server via the VLAN (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0087] the BMC 113 (see FIG. 1) in the server 20A sends a notification which indicates a in the server 20A to the boot management module 103 (see FIG. 1) in the management server 10. Then, the server management module 102 (see FIG. 1) in the management server 10 changes contents of the server management table 301 (see FIG. 5). For instance, the failure is stored for the status 407 corresponding to the server identifier (corresponding to Server1) of the server 20A where the failure has occurred and further, Takua teaches in Para. [0088] about the network SW remote setting module 306 disconnects the server 20A where the failure has occurred from VLAN1 and then adds the server 20D to be newly used to VLAN1 referring to the changed server management table 301).
Regarding claim 8.
Takuwa teaches wherein forwarding the management command to the server via the VLAN comprises: transmitting the management command to the server according to a static Internet protocol (IP) address of the server in the VLAN (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0054] as shown in FIG. 5, the server management table 301 includes items of a server identifier 401, a processor type 402, a memory capacity 403, a boot disk 404, a VLAN ID 405, an IP address 406, and a status 407.).
Regarding claim 9.
Takuwa teaches wherein the management command is received via the management network (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0049] which VLAN each of the servers 20 belongs to, and so on are managed by the network management table 307, which will be described in detail referring to FIG. 6 later.
Regarding claims 11 and 18.
Claims 11 and 18 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of processing unit or processor and storage, the prior art of record Takuwa teaches in Para. [0010], [0029] and [0078].
Regarding claim 12.
Claim 12 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 7 in a system and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of processing unit or processor and storage, the prior art of record Takuwa teaches in Para. [0010], [0029] and [0078].
Regarding claim 13.
Takuwa teaches a switch associated with the processor, the switch being at least configured to perform data exchange between the management network and the VLAN (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0054] referring to FIG. 5, a configuration example of the server management table 301 (see FIG. 3) will be described in detail. As shown in FIG. 5, the server management table 301 includes items of a server identifier 401, a processor type 402, a memory capacity 403, a boot disk 404, a VLAN ID 405, an IP address 406, and a status 407. Also, see Para. [0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claims 14 and 20.
Claims 14 and 20 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 3 in a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of processing unit or processor and storage, the prior art of record Takuwa teaches in Para. [0010], [0029] and [0078].
Regarding claim 16.
Claim 16 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 6 in a non-transitory storage medium form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of processing unit or processor and storage, the prior art of record Takuwa teaches in Para. [0010], [0029] and [0078].
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari Itkin et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0242819 A1, (hereinafter Itkin).
Regarding claim 5. Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari teaches the method of claim 1.
Takuwa further teaches wherein the second configuration command indicates an exit configuration of the VLAN (Takuwa teaches in Para. [0088] that the network SW remote setting module 306 disconnects (i.e., disconnected from the VLAN1 indicates exit from the VLAN) the server 20A where the failure has occurred from VLAN1 and then adds the server 20D to be newly used to VLAN1…). Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari does not explicitly teach wherein the second configuration command indicates a network forwarding cessation from the first BMC to the server.
However, Itkin teaches wherein the second configuration command indicates a network forwarding cessation from the first BMC to the server (Itkin teaches in Fig. 1 and Para. [0021] the management packets sent from BMCs 36 of servers 26 to management server 22 comply in form with the Ethernet protocol and have headers with a destination address corresponding to management server 22… Bridge 40 presents itself on network 38 as the path for forwarding to these destination addresses, in accordance with the Ethernet bridging protocol (although in fact, the bridge terminates (i.e., cessation ) and encapsulates the Ethernet packets and then forwards the encapsulated packets, rather than forwarding the actual Ethernet packets as-is).
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 teachings of using the management packets sent from BMCs 36 of servers in accordance with the Ethernet bridging protocol (although in fact, the bridge terminates (i.e., cessation ) and encapsulates the Ethernet packets and then forwards the packet ([0021]) as taught, by Itkin into the teachings of Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the sideband connection between the NIC and management controller is separate and independent from the host interface and enables the management controller to communicate with the management server, through the NIC and the bridge, even when the CPU and other components of the host computer are inoperative.
Regarding claim 19.
Claim 19 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 5 in a non-transitory storage medium form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of processing unit or processor and storage, the prior art of record Takuwa teaches in Para. [0010], [0029] and [0078].
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari further in view of Tan et al. WO. 2021/168837 A1, (hereinafter Tan).
Regarding claim 10. Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari teaches the method of claim 1.
Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit comprises a system-on-chip (SoC) of a data processing unit (DPU).
However, Tan teaches wherein the processing unit comprises a system-on-chip (SoC) of a data processing unit (DPU) (Tan teaches [On Page. 13, the third Paragraph, lines 2-8] the first chip 001 may be a system-on-chip SOC, and the first chip 001 includes a general-purpose processor 011, a bus 00, and at least one A first dedicated processing unit (Domain Processing Unit, DPU) 021, the general-purpose processor 011…).
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 teachings of using a system on-chip SOC and Domain Processing Unit in a processor (i.e., processing unit) ([Page. 13, the third Paragraph, lines 2-8]) as taught, by Tan into the teachings of Takuwa in view of Dharmadhikari invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the device provides a high-efficiency chip structure under the condition of not increasing the product volume to satisfy the user higher and higher power consumption and operation requirement, thus improving the product performance and satisfying the flexibility of the task processing. The device assists the first special processing unit to process the data processing task by the second processing unit without obviously increasing the volume of the whole chip, thus enhancing the computing capability of the first processing unit and greatly relieving and solving the current algorithm flying speed development requirement of the chip calculating force and, hence avoiding the chip.
Regarding claim 17.
Claim 17 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 10 in a system and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of processing unit or processor and storage, the prior art of record Takuwa teaches in Para. [0010], [0029] and [0078].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art of record Liu in view of Dharmadhikari does not teach the amended claimed limitations. (Remarks. Pages 7-10).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments and the arguments are moot because the Examine respectfully disagrees because has introduced the new prior art of record Takuwa et al. (U.S. pub. No. 2007/0174659 A1) to teach the change in scope of the amended claims 1, 11 and 18 respectively. Therefore, the argument does not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection as set forth indicated in 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2455