DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on April 20, 2026 in this application Ma et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 17/643,422, (Filed December 9, 2021) (“Ma”). Claims 1 and 4 – 24 were pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 20 - 23 are amended. Claim 19 is cancelled. Claims 1, 4 – 18, and 20 – 24 are pending.
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 8 - 10 of the Applicant’s Remarks (“Remarks”) stating that claim 20 has been amended to overcome the rejections made under 35 USC 101, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101. While the amendment does recite that the computer system is operating firmware it still fails to claim updating the firmware instead reciting an intended use of the compatible firmware to overwrite which may occur at some point in the future outside the bounds of the claim. Therefore, claim 20 – 22 remain rejected under 101.
2. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 10 - 11 of the Remarks stating that claim 10 has been amended to overcome the rejections made under 35 USC 112, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112. Claim 10 appears to still lack support for “the base firmware of the one or more second computer system. Therefore the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 112.
3. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 11 - 16 of the Remarks stating that the prior art references fail to teach the amended claims regarding peer-to-peer firmware updating, these arguments are moot in light of newly added reference Mayo which teaches peer-to-peer software updating. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, § Claim 1. Mayo teaches that peer-to-peer networking may be used to transfer a software update from one peer to another. Mayo at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0017 – 0019, 0022, 0024 – 0028, 0031 – 0033, 0036 - 0041. It is noted tha Seminario at ¶ 0360 teaches where the new firmware is stored by overwriting previous firmware. Therefore, the prior art teaches peer-to-peer firmware updating.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of U.S. Applications: Claim 18 of 18/109837. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Application anticipate the claims of the instant Application.
Claims 21 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over the previous claims and applications. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the Application cited and the art used infra to teach the dependent claims and associated motivation.
This is a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
2. Claims 1, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of U.S. Patents: Claim 4 of 11809353, of 11288124, claim 4 of 11379214, claim 10 of 9721100, claim 1 of 9678732, claim 3 of 9183091, claim 1 of 8812828, claim 1 of 9483246, claim 1 of 6360362. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Patents anticipate the claims of the instant Application.
Claims 4 – 19, 21, and 22 are rejected on the ground of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over the previous claims and Patents. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the Patent/Application cited and the art used infra to teach the dependent claims and associated motivation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determine a status of the firmware operable on the first computer system, obtain, via the interface, information on the status of the firmware to the one or more second computer systems, determine if the information on the status of the firmware of the one or more second computer system indicates that the firmware of the at least one second computer is determined to be unbootable, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution data transmission, nothing in the claim elements precludes the status determination and information providing from being performed in the mind of a developer where the computer is merely being used as a tool to transmit the information by the developer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). As drafted, the claimed process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution data transmission, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have identified mere data gathering, displaying/outputting, transmitting, and storing, are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 21 and 22 contain the same abstract idea as claim 20 and do not contain any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected as being indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the base firmware of the one or more second computer systems.” No “base firmware of the one or more second computer systems” has been previously introduced the claim or in a claim from which it depends. While claim 1 has introduced a base firmware of the first computer system and while in claim 1 the first computer system receives “a compatible firmware” from the second computer system for overwriting the unbootable base firmware it is never made clear that any of these are a ”base firmware” of the second computer system.
Claims 11 - 18 are rejected as depending on claim 10. Claims 11, 15, 20 - 22 are rejected for substantially similar reasoning. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected as depending on claim 15. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected as depending on claim 20.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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 of this title, 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.
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, and 4 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0294605 (Published October 6, 2016, filed January 6, 2016) (“Searle”) in view of Prakash et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0047428 (Published February 13, 2014, filed October 16, 2013) (“Prakash”) and Polar Seminario et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0220404 (Published August 3, 2017, filed February 1, 2017) (“Seminario”), and Mayo et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0207844 (Published July 24, 2014, filed January 18, 2013) (“Mayo”).
Claims 1, 20, 23, and 24
With respect to claims 1, 20, 23, and 24, Searle teaches the invention as claimed including an apparatus for a first computer system comprising a base firmware…, the apparatus comprising: interface for communicating with one or more second computer systems; and a processor configured to: determine a [status] of the base firmware of the first computer system,… provide, via the interface, information on the [status] of the base firmware to the one or more second computer systems, obtain, via the interface, a response from at least one of the one or more second computer systems in response to the information on the [status] of the base firmware, {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated, sends updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions, updates may be installed, and updates may be rolled back to a previous version in the event of an error with a status report sent by the device having the error. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶¶ 0051, 0052, & 3485 (target device communication components, such as for LTE or WIFI, operates on the firmware to be updated); id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶ 0052 (firmware may operate on a plurality of devices [systems] and firmware status may be collected from the plurality of devices); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
However, Searle doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
status {Prakash does teach this limitation. Prakash teaches that the device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle, may include where the reported status of a firmware update on a device may be that it fails to boot properly. Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066.
Searle and Prakash are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software updating, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to update a device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a firmware state and updating method, as taught in Searle, with inquiring a device status and receiving a response that the firmware fails to boot, as taught in Prakash. Prakash teaches that reporting the status of a failed update allows corrected software to be provided. Id. at ¶ 0066. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a firmware state and updating method, as taught in Searle, with inquiring a device status and receiving a response that the firmware fails to boot, as taught in Prakash, for the purpose of using a known firmware state request to obtain the boot status of firmware and ensure successful installation.}
However, Searle and Prakash don’t explicitly teach the limitation:
and a rescue firmware…when the status indicates that the base firmware is unbootable, execute the rescue firmware and while executing the rescue firmware… and based on the response, install a compatible firmware received from at least one of the one or more second computer systems to replace the base firmware. {Seminario does teach this limitation. Seminario teaches that the device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle and Prakash, may include where devices operate as both server and client in a peer-to-peer firmware updating scheme where the information exchange on the firmware version currently available on each device is exchanged between devices, including firmware not just stored on each device but which each device “use[es] for it’s own functionality,” as well as in the event of a firmware error, rolling back to a previous firmware version where the previous firmware version may send a report of its status and update its firmware version if so instructed by overwriting previous firmware. Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0024, 0359, 0363, 0364, 0373, 0376 (rollback to previous firmware version in event of error); id. at ¶¶ 0330 & 0459 (update firmware back to new version when instructed); id. at 0444 & 0457 (report on firmware status); id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140 (peer-to-peer updating); id. at ¶¶ 0247 & 0251; id. at fig. 9; id. at ¶ 0360 (new firmware is stored by overwriting previous firmware).
Searle, Prakash, and Seminario are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software updating, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to update a device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle and Prakash, with exchanging firmware version information in a peer-to-peer manner, as taught in Seminario. Seminario teaches that peer-to-peer communication leverages the use of existing networking interconnections to allow every device to “function as both a server and a client.” Id. at ¶ 0104. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle and Prakash, with exchanging firmware version information in a peer-to-peer manner, as taught in Seminario, for the purpose of using a known communication protocol for increasing two-way information exchange between devices during an upgrade with an upgrade method that requires exchanging upgrade information between devices.}
However, Searle, Prakash, and Seminario don’t explicitly teach the limitation:
in a peer-to-peer fashion {Mayo does teach this limitation. Mayo teaches that the device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle, Prakash, and Seminario, may include where peer-to-peer networking may be used to transfer a software update from one peer to another. Mayo at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0017 – 0019, 0022, 0024 – 0028, 0031 – 0033, 0036 - 0041.
Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software updating, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to update a device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle, Prakash, and Seminario, with exchanging firmware version information in a peer-to-peer manner, as taught in Mayo. Seminario teaches that peer-to-peer communication leverages the use of existing networking interconnections to allow every device to “function as both a server and a client.” Id. at ¶ 0104. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a device firmware updating method, as taught in Searle and Prakash, with exchanging firmware version information in a peer-to-peer manner, as taught in Seminario, for the purpose of using a known communication protocol for increasing two-way information exchange between devices during an upgrade with an upgrade method that requires exchanging upgrade information between devices.}
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the response comprises information an at least one second computer system offering to provide the compatible firmware for the first computer system, wherein the processor is configured to request the compatible firmware from the at least one second computer system based on the response. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the response comprises the compatible firmware. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to determine version information on the base firmware of the first computer system, and to include the version information in the information on the status of the base firmware. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to obtain a compatible firmware having an updated version for the first computer system from the at least one second computer system providing the response. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the response is obtained from the at least one second computer system offering to provide the firmware having the updated version for the first computer system, wherein the processor is configured to request the firmware having the updated version from the at least one second computer system based on the response. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the response comprises the firmware having the updated version. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a [status] of the base firmware of the one or more second computer systems from the one or more second computer systems, {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version).}
status {The reported status of a firmware update on a device may be that it fails to boot properly. Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066.}
and to provide a further response to the one or more second computer systems based on the status of the base firmware of the first computer system and based on the information on the status of the firmware of the one or more second computer systems. {The devices operate as both server and client in a peer-to-peer firmware updating scheme where the information exchange on the firmware version currently available on each device is exchanged between devices, including firmware not just stored on each device but which each device “use[es] for it’s own functionality.” Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140 (peer-to-peer); id. at ¶¶ 0247 & 0251 id. at fig. 9.}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to determine, if the information on the [status] of the base firmware of the one or more second computer systems indicates that the base firmware of at least one second computer system is determined to be unbootable, whether the first computer system comprises a compatible firmware that is compatible for the at least one second computer system, {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140 (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client).}
status {The reported status of a firmware update on a device may be that it fails to boot properly. Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066.}
and to provide the compatible firmware to the at least one second computer system if the first computer system comprises the compatible firmware that is compatible for the at least one second computer system. {The devices may operate as both server and client in a peer-to-peer firmware updating scheme where the information exchange on the firmware version currently available on each device is exchanged between devices. Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9.}
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the further response comprises information on the first computer system offering to provide the compatible firmware for the at least one second computer system, wherein the processor is configured to provide the compatible firmware to the at least one second computer system upon request by the at least one second computer system. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the further response comprises the compatible firmware. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a version information on the base firmware of the first computer system, and to compare the version information on the base firmware of the first computer system with version information included in the information on the status of the base firmware of the one or more second computer systems. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to, if the first computer system comprises an updated firmware with an updated version relative to the version information included in the information on the status of the base firmware of at least one of the one or more second computer systems, provide the updated firmware having the updated version to the at least one second computer system. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the further response comprises an offer to provide the firmware having the updated version to the at least one second computer system, and the processor is configured to provide the firmware having the updated version upon request by the at least one second computer system. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the further response comprises the firmware having the updated version. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the first computer system comprises a repository with a plurality of firmware images, wherein the processor is configured to provide the further response to the one or more second computer systems based on the plurality of firmware images. {An update server communicates to a plurality of different types of update target devices to collect firmware state information for the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); id. at ¶¶ 0072, 0078, 0130, & 2550 (repository of firmware image versions); Seminario at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0104 & 0140; id. at fig. 9. (first and second computer may perform the functions of both the server and client); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status includes unbootable).}
Claim 21
With respect to claim 21, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein in response to determining the at the base firmware of at least one of the one or more second computer systems is unbootable the processor is configured to determine whether the first computer system comprises the compatible firmware for the at least one second computer, and to provide the compatible firmware to the at least one second computer system if the first computer system comprises the compatible firmware that is compatible for the at least one second computer system. {Devices of different types may determine their firmware state, such as their current version, and an update server may communicate to the different types of update target devices to request the firmware state information from the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status is unbootable).}
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, Searle, Prakash, Seminario, and Mayo, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a version information on the base firmware of the first computer system, and to compare the version information on the base firmware of the first computer system with version information included in the information on the status of the base firmware of the one or more second computer systems. {Devices of different types may determine their firmware state, such as their current version, and an update server may communicate to the different types of update target devices to request the firmware state information from the devices such as the names, models, and identifiers for the devices as well as firmware/software versions that are to be updated and then updates applicable to the different types of devices/versions may be transmitted to the devices and installed. Searle at ¶¶ 0047, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0063, 0108, 1878, 3341 – 3346; id. at ¶ 0059 (send update package to device using gathered id and version information); id. at ¶¶ 0080 & 0129 (update installation failure triggers status report and rollback to previous version); Prakash at Abstract; id. at claims 1 & 2; id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0049, 00052, 0054, 0066 (status is unbootable).}
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
//T.H./ September 24, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
