DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed August 20, 2024.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 23-31 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 23, 24, 30, and 31 have been amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2024 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 15, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2007/0049296), in view of Tuckey (US 2011/0161468), and further in view of Lingafelt (US 2009/0193086).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses:
a first processor and a first non-transitory memory comprising program code, wherein the first non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the first processor (see at least paragraph 23, server), cause the apparatus to at least:
receive location data associated with at least one Type-1 device and at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 18, proximity area, devices in the proximity area; paragraphs 20 and 23; paragraph 47; remote device location may be tracked using GPS; figure 7);
based at least in part on the location data […], generate at least one Type-1 [data] for the at least one Type-1 device and at least one Type-2 [data] for the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 23, package media content into primary bundles intended for devices within the proximity area; figure 8);
transmit the at least one Type-1 [data] and the at least one Type-2 [data] to the at least one Type-1 device (see at least paragraph 23, the bundles are forwarded to the one or more remote devices and a first remote device can receive content not intended for it but send that content to a second remote device within the proximity area; paragraph 34, first remote device receives bundle data designated for it; paragraph 29, each device receives its own content and may receive content for other devices); and
cause the at least one Type-1 device to execute […] the at least one Type-[data], wherein […] is configured to cause the at least one Type-1 device to transmit the at least one Type-2 [data] to the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 23, a first remote device can receive content not intended for it but send that content to a second remote device within the proximity area; paragraph 34, first remote device receives a primary bundle and extracts content designated to it and forward content to other remote devices; paragraphs 35 and 36)
However Gupta does not explicitly disclose, but Tuckey discloses:
secure-ware (see at least paragraph 24, Updated configuration information such as configuration parameters or programs (including software or firmware executable by a controller on the IED) can be cascaded via peer-to-peer communications among the IEDs, which simplifies the process of upgrading or reconfiguration of similar IEDs among the IEDs);
cause the at least one Type-1 device to execute firmware of the at least one Type- secure-ware, wherein the firmware of at least one Type-1 secure-ware is configured to cause the at least one Type-1 device to transmit the at least one Type-2 secure-ware to the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 24, Updated configuration information such as configuration parameters or programs (including software or firmware executable by a controller on the IED) can be cascaded via peer-to-peer communications among the IEDs, which simplifies the process of upgrading or reconfiguration of similar IEDs among the IEDs; paragraph 25, communication of configuration information can be cascaded from the initial seed IEDs receiving the configuration information from the CMS 102 to the respective peer IEDs of the initial seed IEDs without requiring the CMS 102 to be involved in the communications, alleviating significant processing burden from the CMS 102 and freeing up the CMS 102 to carry out other tasks; paragraph 35, The peer-to-peer cascading requires that the IEDs to be upgraded or reconfigured are of the same type and are capable of communication with each other over the networks 106a-f. It is preferable that each of the IEDs 104 and 204 in FIGS. 1-2 to be configured has a relatively large amount of memory available and to be linked via a peer-to-peer protocol that allows files and data to be uploaded to each IED. In this example, upgrade and reconfiguration actions are both accomplished by transferring a file including configuration information to an IED over the appropriate network interface; paragraph 36, An example process of cascading configuration information includes: a) initiating an upgrade or reconfiguration of an IED based on configuration information on all or a subset of the network of IEDs 104 and 204; b) the IEDs 104 and 204 obtaining the new upgrade or reconfiguration file through cascading peer-to-peer transfer; and c) the IEDs 104 and 204 starting to operate using the new upgrade or reconfiguration file; paragraph 40, the list file could be written to the initial seed IEDs at the same time as the new configuration information file is written to the initial seed IEDs; paragraph 42, The instruction to upgrade or configure an IED 104 or 204 may be explicit ([…]through the seed IED); paragraphs 48 and 50, various device types and if device type is matched, then the device updates as appropriate and whether or not the given device is updated the device then acts as a seed itself and makes the list available to other devices; paragraph 55, selected seed IEDs are informed to instruct the peer IEDs to perform the upgrade)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta by adapting the teachings of Tuckey to include upgrading the firmware of a device. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date hardware by allowing firmware of a device to be updated.
However Gupta and Tuckey do not explicitly disclose, but Lingafelt discloses:
determine security category data associated with the at least one Type-1 device and the at least one Type-2 device, wherein the security category data is indicative of at least a security category of a first location in which the at least one Type-1 device is located or a second location in which the at least one Type-2 device is located (see at least paragraph 20, information identifying the physical location of the computing device; paragraph 21, security level of the physical location; paragraph 22, classes of data the computing device is permitted to present according to predetermined criteria; paragraph 30, geographic location of the computing device);
based at least in part on […] the security category data, [generate and send data] (see at least paragraph 37, determine if the rules permit a completion of the requested action, including sending the IM to the IM instance being examined, determined whether the retrieved predefined rules permit sending the IM based on the retrieved IM attributes and the type of computing device being examined; examples, paragraphs 42 and 43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta and Tuckey by adapting the teachings of Lingafelt to include sending data, specifically IM data, based on the location and security level of a device. The combination allows for improving control of a multiple IM instances located in different physical locations and also prevents unauthorized viewing of messages (Lingafelt ¶1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Gupta further discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-1 device comprises at least one second processor and at least one second non-transitory memory (paragraph 26, remote device includes processor a memory portion; paragraph 29, memory portion used to store data including applications)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Gupta further discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-1 device comprises at least one of a camera element or a microphone element (see at least paragraph 26, remote device include input devices 210; paragraph 28, input device 210 may include a visual input device such as a camera and an audio input device such as a microphone)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Gupta further discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-1 device comprises a sensor-independent interface, and wherein the sensor-independent interface is configured to electronically couple the at least one Type-1 device to the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 26, remote device comprise wireless transceivers; paragraph 27, remote device has multiple ways of communicating with other remote devices)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Gupta further discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-2 device comprises at least one sensor-dependent interface, and wherein the at least one sensor-dependent interface is configured to electronically couple the at least one Type-2 device to at least one sensing element (see at least paragraph 28, remote device has an input device that may include a camera or a microphone; paragraph 26, remote device includes a user interface comprises input devices)
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Gupta as modified further discloses:
determine that secure-ware is to be generated for the at least one Type-1 device and the at least one Type-2 device based at least in part on the location data, wherein the at least one Type-1 secure-ware and the at least one Type-2 secure-ware is generated in response to the determination (see at least Gupta paragraph 23, package media content into primary bundles intended for devices within the proximity area; figure 8; Tuckey paragraph 37, selected IEDs are updated or changes in configuration information are made, server communicates with the required seed IEDs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt for the reasons listed above.
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Gupta as modified further discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-1 device and the at least one Type-2 device communicate via a botnet (see at least Tuckey paragraphs 6 and 7, figures 2A and 2B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt for the reasons listed above.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claim 1 and they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 9-11, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 2-4 and are each rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2007/0049296), in view of Tuckey (US 2011/0161468), further in view of Lingafelt (US 2009/0193086), and still further in view of Tian (US 2017/0277533).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Tian discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-1 secure-ware comprises at least one life cycle indicator, and wherein the first non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the first processor, cause the apparatus to further: cause the at least one Type-1 device to exit the at least one Type-1 secure-ware based on the at least one life cycle indicator (see at least paragraph 68, when it is determined that upgrading the firmware has failed within the preset time interval, exit upgrading the firmware to stop operating upgrading the firmware at this time)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Tian to include a timeout for upgrading the firmware of a device. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date hardware by allowing firmware of a device to be updated as well as accounting for failure of updates.
Regarding claim 12, the scope of the instant claim does not differ substantially from that of claim 5 and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7, 23, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2007/0049296), in view of Tuckey (US 2011/0161468), further in view of Lingafelt (US 2009/0193086), and still further in view of Malladi (US 2018/0088859).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Malladi discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-2 secure-ware comprises at least one software driver for the at least one sensing element (see at least paragraph 14, firmware can be used to interface with the sensor using a driver)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Malladi to include firmware interactions related to sensors. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date sensor firmware (Malladi paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Malladi discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-2 secure-ware comprises second firmware embodying at least one software algorithm that, upon execution of the at least one Type-2 secure-ware by the at least one Type-2 device, causes the at least one Type-2 device to collect sensing data generated by sensing elements (see at least paragraph 1, the firmware running on the node can be used to configure the sensors and process the data collected by the sensors; paragraph 14, sensor firmware is associated with sensor configuration and sensor functions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Malladi to include firmware interactions related to sensors. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date sensor firmware (Malladi paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Malladi discloses:
wherein the at least one software algorithm of the at least one Type-2 secure-ware further the at least one Type-2 device to convert the sensing data into a converted format that is communicable (see at least paragraph 14, sensors node includes sensor and communication link to communicate the sensor data collected by the sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Malladi to include firmware interactions related to sensors. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date sensor firmware (Malladi paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Malladi discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-2 secure-ware defines aspects for controlling operation of the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 1, firmware on a node can be used to configure the sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Malladi to include firmware interactions related to sensors. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date sensor firmware (Malladi paragraph 14).
Claims 26, 27, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2007/0049296), in view of Tuckey (US 2011/0161468), further in view of Lingafelt (US 2009/0193086), and still further in view of Drake (US 2014/0236769).
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Drake discloses:
receive sensing data from one or more of the at least one Type-2 device; generate digital scene data based at least in part on the sensing data; and determine the digital scene data indicates an event requiring generation of updated secure-ware, wherein the apparatus generates the at least one Type-1 secure-ware and the at least one Type-2 secure-ware based at least in part on the determination (see at least paragraph 37, when objects are sensed to be within proximity to an update device, they are updated and can then send the update to other objects)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Drake to include upgrading devices based on sensing data in this case proximity. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date hardware by allowing firmware of close by devices to be updated and then cascaded to other devices without having to travel to each device or item.
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Drake discloses:
identify, based at least in part on the location data, that the at least one Type-1 device and the at least one Type-2 device is within an area associated with the digital scene data, wherein the at least one Type-1 secure-ware and the at least one Type-2 secure-ware is generated in response to the determination (see at least paragraph 37, when objects are sensed to be within proximity to an update device, they are updated and can then send the update to other objects)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Drake to include upgrading devices based on sensing data in this case proximity. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date hardware by allowing firmware of close by devices to be updated and then cascaded to other devices without having to travel to each device or item.
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Drake discloses:
wherein the at least one Type-1 secure-ware is generated based at least in part on sensing data received from the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 37, when objects are sensed to be within proximity to an update device, they are updated and can then send the update to other objects)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Drake to include upgrading devices based on sensing data in this case proximity. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date hardware by allowing firmware of close by devices to be updated and then cascaded to other devices without having to travel to each device or item.
Regarding claim 31, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt do not explicitly disclose, but Drake discloses:
receive digital scene data based at least in part on the at least one Type-1 secure-ware or at least one Type-2 secure-ware; generate additional secure-ware based at least in part on the digital scene data; and transmit the additional secure-ware to a particular device corresponding to the additional secure-ware, wherein the particular device comprises one of the at least one Type-1 device or the at least one Type-2 device (see at least paragraph 37, when objects are sensed to be within proximity to an update device, they are updated and can then send the update to other objects)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta, Tuckey, and Lingafelt by adapting the teachings of Drake to include upgrading devices based on sensing data in this case proximity. The combination allows for easily maintaining up to date hardware by allowing firmware of close by devices to be updated and then cascaded to other devices without having to travel to each device or item.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under §103:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered. Newly cited art Lingafelt discloses the newly added limitations as seen in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kriegel discloses a system monitors and control devices that sense and report a location’s physical characteristics through a distributed network, based on the sensed characteristics, the system may determine and/or change a security level at a location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights