DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 recites a product including instructions to perform a method including a plurality of steps, according to lines 3-4, these steps are performed by the first electronic device. Lines 11-18 recite
“in response to transmitting the information (i.e., version of the first instructions), receive, via the communication circuitry, from the second electronic device, a command signal requesting to upload the first instructions having the version of the first instructions, wherein the version of the first instructions is later than a version of second instructions, the second instructions corresponding to the state and stored in the second electronic device, and the command signal is transmitted from the second electronic device in accordance with a comparison between the version of the first instructions and the version of the second instructions using the information”
The line “a command signal requesting to upload” it is unclear from the context of the claim where are the first instructions being uploaded to? Are they being uploaded to a different electronic device, a cloud, etc.? A review of the specification shows in [0057] “For example, when the cache data stored in the electronic device 101 is a more updated version of cache data than the cache data stored in the electronic device 120, the electronic device 120 (i.e., second) may transmit a signal indicating uploading of the cache data to the electronic device 101.” This does not provide clarification for the claim limitation as the cache data is already in electronic device 101. Information regarding the version was sent to the second electronic device and a command was received in response. The information sent was associated with the instructions that are stored in the memory of the first electronic device (See claim 1, lines 5-7) It is unclear why would the first electronic device upload it to itself, if the first electronic device already has the later version.
The line “the command signal is transmitted from the second electronic device in accordance with a comparison between the version of the first instructions and the version of the second instructions using the information” It is unclear what does “in accordance with a comparison” means in the context of the claim. How is it determined using one set of information (i.e., version from the first instructions) which instructions having a later version. Does the information also contain version information about the second instructions? Is there second information in a memory of the second electronic device that is used to compare? Is the information compared to the instructions?
Lines 5-7 state “first instructions […] executable by a second processor of the first electronic device distinct from the first processor”.
Lines 19-22 recite “in response to receiving the command signal, transmit, via the communication circuitry, to the second electronic device, the first instructions”
It is unclear whether the command signal is a request from the second electronic device to obtain the newer instructions from the first electronic device, upload them by the first electronic device to a different location, or both. Furthermore, since these instructions are executable by the second processor of the first electronic device, it is unclear why are they being sent to the second electronic device.
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure the deficiencies set forth above for claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale above.
Claim 9 recites a different scenario from claim 1. However, it also includes similar deficiencies as noted above for claim 1, specifically in lines 17-19.
Dependent claims 10-15 fail to cure the deficiencies set forth above for claim 9 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 16, line 10 recites “comparing the version of the first instructions with a version of second instructions” the claim recites that it is a method for the first electronic device and identifies the version of the first instructions from the information received. It is unclear where the version of the second instructions is obtained from for the comparison, are these local to the first electronic device?
Lines 11-17 recite that after comparing the instructions and determining that the second instructions are later than the first sending a command signal in conjunction with the second instructions to update the first instructions in the second electronic device. However, the claim further recites that it receives a second command signal to upload the first instructions. It is unclear what is the difference between updating and uploading as it appears to be different in the context of the claims. Updating appears to synchronize the versions between the devices, but “a second command signal indicating to upload the first instructions” is unclear when viewed as a whole.
Dependent claims 17-19 fail to cure the deficiencies set forth above for claim 16 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2007/0156788 A1) Wray teaches enabling the computer infrastructure to replicate including computer program code for enabling the computer infrastructure to: compare an update identifier corresponding to a protected data item in the local version of the manifest to an update identifier corresponding to the protected data item in the server version of the manifest; obtain a server version of the protected data item when the update identifier in the local version of the manifest is older than the update identifier in the server version of the manifest; compare an update identifier in the obtained protected data item with the update identifier in the server version of the manifest; and update a local version of the protected data item based on the server version of the protected data item.
(US 2007/0155494 A1) Wells teaches [0266] Therefore, when a user 116 initiates the MPG logic 112, the MPG engine 1414 retrieves the version identifiers of the components (e.g., the game content inventory 1441, the MPG logic 112, the music-powered attributes 1451, and the MPG engine 1414). The MPG engine 1414 then requests from the MPGS logic 106 via the network 1418 the current version identifiers associated with such components.
[0267] The MPGS logic 1406 transmits the requested current version identifiers to the MPG engine 1414. The MPG engine 1414 compares the current version identifiers transmitted by the MGPS logic 1406 and the version with the retrieved version identifiers to determine if the versions are synchronized (i.e., the current versions are stored in the game unit 1404).
[0268] If a version exists on the game unit 1404 that is not located on the server 1402 (e.g., a current version identifier for a component does not match the component's version identifier), the MPG engine 1414 removes the version from the game unit 1404. Thus, it is possible for a user of server 1402 to discontinue the use of a component by removing the component's version identifier from the server 1402.
[0269] Moreover, if a version on the game unit 1404 differs from the version on the server (e.g., if the a component's current version identifier, which is received from the server 1402 does not match the component's version identifier stored in the game unit 1404), the MPG engine 1414 downloads the current version from the MPGS logic 1406.
(US 2009/0137321 A1) Katsume teaches “Each of the client terminals 21 to 2N compares the game data for distribution (SP-S', SD-S') downloaded and stored in the client terminal 21 to 2N with the version information of original data of the game data for distribution (SP-S, SD-S) stored in the online game server 10 whenever the online game starts. In the case where this version information does not correspond with the game data, by automatically downloading the game data for distribution stored in the online game server 10 again to be overwritten and saved in the client terminal 21 to 2N, the game data for distribution stored in the client terminal 21 to 2N are synchronized with the game data for distribution stored in the online game server 10, whereby version management is carried out.”
(US 2012/0173953 A1) Flyn et al. teaches “synchronize and update firmware sub-system further comprises reading said original controller firmware revision information from said original controller firmware code, obtaining said replacement controller firmware revision information from said currently running simplex array controller when determined to be operating as said replacement simplex array controller, comparing said original controller firmware revision information to said replacement controller firmware revision information, determining that said replacement simplex array controller is running different firmware than said original simplex array controller if said original controller firmware revision information does not match said replacement controller firmware revision information, uploading said original controller revision of firmware from said original controller firmware code image to said currently running simplex array controller when determined to be operating as said replacement simplex array controller, installing said original controller revision of firmware on said currently running simplex array controller when determined to be operating as said replacement simplex array controller”
Hartland et al. (US 8,244,678 B1) teaches “the client software communicates with the central data storage facilities, and compares the prior files version with the most recent file version and computes a delta between the two versions for compression, encryption and upload to the second data store. The client detects and replicates changes in the respective data stores, including detection of differences in versions of data.”
(US 2014/0068587 A1) Krishna teaches “wherein the software upgrade comprises a version of software upgrade and a version of upgrade patch software and the replication modules are further configured to: determine for each communication device to receive a download, a version of software for the communication device to receive a download and a version of patch software for the communication device to receive a download, and in response to determining the version of software for the communication device to receive a download and the version of patch software for the communication device to receive a download, compare the version of software upgrade with the version of software for the communication device to receive a download and compare the version of upgrade patch software with the version of patch software for the communication device to receive a download.”
(US 2007/0038642 A1) Durgin teaches “the software component has an associated version number, and wherein the act of synchronizing further comprises an act of comparing a version number of a software component stored in a first instance of the distributed database with a version of a software component stored in a second instance of the distributed database” See [0010]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA whose telephone number is (571)270-0692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights