DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed on 5/19/2026.
2. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-16, 18-21 and 23-25 are pending. No amendments have been made.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive.
A. In responding to Applicant’s arguments “nothing in Waters teaches that the third-party patch manager is "a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device and is distinct from the third-party website." Furthermore, Waters fails to teach that the client customer or the OEM of the software application is "a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device and is distinct from the third-party website",” Examiners respectfully disagree. Waters discloses that server 203, which is different from the third-party website 102 or OEM 302 [para. 7-8 and 17-18], indirectly provides patches from OEM 302 to the target node/platforms 210/215 [para. 21]. Thus, the server 203 provides network connectivity from the OEM 302 to the target node/platforms 210/215; therefore, Waters’ server 203, which is different from the third-party website 102 or OEM 302, providing network connectivity to the target node/platforms 210/215 is the same as “a server associated with a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device and is distinct from the third-party website” as recited in claim 2.
B. Applicant alleged that “The Patent Office fails to provide a proper motivation to combine Waters with reference to Gooch,” that “The Patent Office has failed to show that the system of Gooch has any need for an additional company that is distinct from the company owning the remediation server and remediation website of Gooch. Further, there is no showing that separating the remediation website and the remediation server so that they are owned by separate entities would result in any efficiencies or why a person of skill would separate those functions into separate entities,” and that “the stated motivation to "to efficiently and securely apply, by the third-party, patches and updates to the company's platform and to save company's cost" is inapplicable to Gooch. Gooch is not concerned with applying patches or updates.”
Examiners respectfully disagree. The primary reference Gooch discloses a system that identifies a client needing remediation and forwards packets to a remote remediation VLAN different from an original destination VLAN [abstract]; Gooch further discloses that the remediation process, performed by a network administrator of the network owner [para. 48], involves contacting a remediation to retrieve and apply the relevant updates and patches [para. 31].
The secondary reference Waters discloses a patch and update management process, performed by specialist service provider, in which relevant updates and patches are retrieved from a patch repository [para. 8-9]. Therefore, those ordinary skills in the art would modify Gooch’s retrieving relevant updates and patches in remediation process performed by the network owner/customer with Waters’ retrieving patches and updates performed by a specialist service provider to efficiently and securely apply, by the third-party, patches and updates to the company's platform and to save customer’s cost [Waters para. 9].
Accordingly, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooch (US PG Pub. 2009/0006575) in view of Waters (US PG Pub. 2010/0017794).
As regarding claim 2, Gooch discloses A method, comprising:
based on a user device sending, to a third-party website, a device identifier associated with the user device, causing a determination, by the third-party website and based on the device identifier, of a service identifier that indicates a server associated with a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device [para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client to determine the name of the remote remediation server]; and
receiving, by the user device and from the third-party website, the service identifier, wherein the service provider is associated with the user device [para. 62-63; the client receiving address of the remediation server].
Gooch does not explicitly disclose that a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device and is distinct from the third-party website; however, Waters discloses it [FIG.1 and para. 5-8; a company, e.g. customer 202, is another entity that provides network connectivity to the IT personnel’s device and is different from a third-party service provider].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Gooch’s service provider to further comprise a company that is distinct from the third-party website, as disclosed by Waters,in order to efficiently and securely apply, by the third-party, patches and updates to the company's platform and to save company’s cost [Waters para. 9].
As regarding claim 3, Gooch and Waters further disclose The method of claim 2, wherein the device identifier comprises information indicating one or more of a manufacturer, a model, a type of device, and a class of the user device [Gooch para. 37; first six characters of MAC address identifying the manufacture], the method further comprising causing a determination, by the third-party website and based on a user identifier associated with the user device, the service identifier [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client, determining IP address of the of the remote remediation server].
As regarding claim 4, Gooch and Waters further disclose The method of claim 2, wherein the service identifier comprises a uniform resource locator of the server associated with the service provider [Gooch para. 62-63; web site names, e.g. http://www.hp.com, master.remediation.hp.com, rs1.remediation.hp.com, etc…].
As regarding claim 6, Gooch and Waters further disclose The method of claim 2, further comprising based on sending the device identifier, causing, based on the device identifier, a determination by the third-party website of an address element associated with the user device, wherein the address element comprises one or more of an internet protocol address, a network address, or an internet address [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; MAC address].
As regarding claim 7, Gooch and Waters further disclose The method of claim 2, further comprising receiving, based on the service identifier, data directing the user device to a service location [Gooch para. 62-63; the client receiving address of the remediation server].
As regarding claim 23, Gooch and Waters further disclose further disclose The method of claim 2, further comprising accessing, by the user device, the third-party website, wherein accessing the third-party website causes a detection, by the third-party website, of a compromised state of the user device [Gooch para. 31 and 58; identifying the client to be non-compliant].
As regarding claim 24, Gooch and Waters further disclose further disclose The method of claim 2, further comprising causing a determination, by the third-party website and based on the device identifier, of the service provider, wherein the service provider is determined from a plurality of service providers [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client to determine the name of the remote remediation server].
6. Claims 8, 9, 11-16, 18-21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooch (US PG Pub. 2009/0006575) in view of Stern (US PG Pub. 2011/0265116) and further in view of Waters (US PG Pub. 2010/0017794).
As regarding claim 8, Gooch discloses A method, comprising:
based on a user device sending, to a third-party website, a [device] identifier associated with the user device, causing a determination, by the third-party website and based on the [device] identifier, of a remediation service identifier that indicates a server associated with a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device [para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client to determine the name of the remote remediation server];
Gooch does not explicitly disclose the device identifier comprising a user identifier; however, Stern discloses it [para. 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Gooch’s device identifier to further comprise a user identifier, as disclosed by Stern,as an alternative client identifier that is used for determining network service.
Gooch and Stern further disclose receiving, by the user device and from the third-party website, the remediation service identifier, wherein the service provider is associated with the user device [Gooch para. 62-63; the client receiving address of the remediation server].
Gooch and Stern do not explicitly disclose that a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device and is distinct from the third-party website; however, Waters discloses it [FIG.1 and para. 5-8; a company, e.g. customer 202, is another entity that provides network connectivity to the IT personnel’s device and is different from a third-party service provider].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Gooch and Stern’s service provider to further comprise a company that is distinct from the third-party website, as disclosed by Waters,in order to efficiently and securely apply, by the third-party, patches and updates to the company's platform and to save company’s cost [Waters para. 9].
As regarding claim 9, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The method of claim 8, wherein the user identifier comprises an internet protocol address [Stern para. 139; the MAC or IP address of the requesting device].
As regarding claim 11, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The method of claim 8, wherein the remediation service identifier comprises a uniform resource locator associated with an online remediation service [Gooch para. 62-63; web site names, e.g. http://www.hp.com, master.remediation.hp.com, rs1.remediation.hp.com, etc…].
As regarding claim 12, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The method of claim 8, wherein the remediation service identifier is stored by a domain name system server [Gooch para. 62; remediation server identifiers, to be resolved to an IP address, are stored by a DNS server].
As regarding claim 13, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The method of claim 8, further comprising based on sending the user identifier, causing, based on the user identifier, a determination by the third-party website of an address element associated with the user device, wherein the address element comprises one or more of an internet protocol address, a network address, or an internet address [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; MAC address].
As regarding claim 14, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The method of claim 8, further comprising receiving, based on the remediation service identifier, data directing the user device to a remediation service [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client to determine the name of the remote remediation server].
As regarding claim 15, Gooch discloses An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors [para. 14, 22, 26 and 29]; and
a memory comprising processor-executable instructions [para. 87] that, when executed by the one or more processors [para. 22, 26 and 29], cause the apparatus to:
based on sending a [device] identifier associated with the apparatus to a third-party website, cause a determination, by the third-party website and based on the [device] identifier, of a remediation service identifier that indicates a server associated with a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device [para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client to determine the name of the remote remediation server];
Gooch does not explicitly disclose the device identifier comprising a user identifier; however, Stern discloses it [para. 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Gooch’s device identifier to further comprise a user identifier, as disclosed by Stern,as an alternative client identifier that is used for determining network service.
Gooch and Stern further disclose receive, from the third-party website, the remediation service identifier, wherein the service provider is associated with the apparatus [Gooch para. 62-63; the client receiving address of the remediation server].
Gooch and Stern do not explicitly disclose that a service provider that provides network connectivity to the user device and is distinct from the third-party website; however, Waters discloses it [FIG.1 and para. 5-8; a company, e.g. customer 202, is another entity that provides network connectivity to the IT personnel’s device and is different from a third-party service provider].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Gooch and Stern’s service provider to further comprise a company that is distinct from the third-party website, as disclosed by Waters,in order to efficiently and securely apply, by the third-party, patches and updates to the company's platform and to save company’s cost [Waters para. 9].
As regarding claim 16, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the user identifier comprises an internet protocol address [Stern para. 139; the MAC or IP address of the requesting device].
As regarding claim 18, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the remediation service identifier comprises a uniform resource locator associated with an online remediation service [Gooch para. 62-63; web site names, e.g. http://www.hp.com, master.remediation.hp.com, rs1.remediation.hp.com, etc…].
As regarding claim 19, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the remediation service identifier is stored by a domain name system server [Gooch para. 62; remediation server identifiers, to be resolved to an IP address, are stored by a DNS server].
As regarding claim 20, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, further comprising based on sending the device identifier, causing, based on the device identifier, a determination by the third party website of an address element associated with the apparatus, wherein the address element comprises one or more of an internet protocol address, a network address, or an internet address [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; MAC address].
As regarding claim 21, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to receive, based on the remediation service identifier, data directing the apparatus to a remediation service [Gooch para. 23, 63 and 66-67; based on a client device sending, to a third party vendor supplying remediation functionality, the MAC address of the client to determine the name of the remote remediation server].
As regarding claim 25, Gooch, Stern and Waters further disclose The method of claim 8, further comprising accessing, by the user device, the third-party website, wherein accessing the third-party website causes a detection, by the third-party website, of a compromised state of the user device [Gooch para. 31 and 58; identifying the client to be non-compliant].
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 5712726798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/THONG P TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights