DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-6, 31 and 34-36 are pending in the current application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/24/25, with respect to the 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/24/25, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakamoto (Pub. No. US 2009/0161143 A1) [0159] lines 1-5, [0160] lines 1-5, [0161] lines 1-4 and [0198] lines 1-6 which shows that firmware can be disabled and then deleted when the disabled firmware is replaced, viewed as a type of unneeded/unnecessary, where by disabling firmware it is displaced to a location different from the appropriate storage location on the storage device where by being displaced it can be moved to a temporary storage location of the HDD viewed as still residing in the device/equipment that in light of the teachings of Stewart [0012] lines 1-5, [0024] lines 3-5, [0025] lines 4-7, and [0026] lines 1-6 showing the specifics of disabling and deletion of unwanted/unneeded/unnecessary firmware instruction elements can together be viewed as showing disable based on the received first indication firmware modules in the memory circuitry in the user equipment lacking support for the indicated action, wherein disabling any other module comprises disabling capabilities in the module while the module resides in the user equipment and removing/deleting disabled firmware, viewed as firmware determined to be disabled .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (Pub. No. US 2018/0129515 A1) in view of McDonald et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0173579 A1), in view of Stewart et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0027074 A1), in view of Nakamoto (Pub. No. US 2009/0161143 A1) and further in view of Ruble et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0031672 A1).
As to claim 1, Kumar discloses a method, the method comprising: the task indicating an action to be performed by the processing circuitry in the user equipment, the action corresponding to a module of a plurality of modules of firmware to be executed by the processing circuitry in the user equipment to perform the indicated action, wherein the entire plurality of modules of firmware is not installed in the user equipment (Kuman [0038] lines 14-21 and [0039] lines 16-33; which shows for a specific measurement task/action that is associated with a specific measurement software package, viewed as a plurality of module elements, and being able to determine if the specific measurement feature/module is not already available being able to download that specific module/element feature, thus viewed as software a module of a plurality of modules wherein the entire plurality of modules/element/features is not already installed on the device/user equipment);
downloading through the network interface circuity the module of firmware corresponding to the indicated action into a memory circuity in the user equipment, based on determining the module of firmware corresponding to the indicated action is not already downloaded into the memory circuitry in the user equipment (Kumar [0027] lines 13-19, [0039] lines 16-33 and [0053] lines 7-13; which shows being able make a determination if a specific requested software feature, viewed as module corresponding to an action to be performed by the equipment/device is already downloaded and residing in the memory of the device and if not already downloaded, downloading that specific element/module that is missing from the memory of the device), and
communicating through the network interface circuity with the user equipment to enable execution, by the processing circuitry in the user equipment, the downloaded module of firmware corresponding to the indicated action, the enabling execution being further based on determining the downloaded module of firmware corresponding to the indicated action is not already enabled in the user equipment (Kumar [0011] lines 1-12, [0039] lines 16-33, [0053] lines 7-13 and [0054] lines 13-18; which shows being able make a determination if a specific requested software feature, viewed as module corresponding to an action to be performed by the equipment/device is already downloaded/enabled for the device and determine if the specific feature is already active/enabled so it does not get activated/enabled again thus viewed as showing if the specific feature is not enabled enabling it so that it is enabled/active for execution/use, where the specifics of communicating information through the network interface circuitry with user equipment is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of McDonald below).
Kumar does not specifically disclose a method, performed by processing circuity of a first node, for handling firmware, the first node operating in a communications network, the method comprising: receiving through a network interface circuitry a first indication from a second node operating in the communications network, the first indication indicating a task to be performed by a user equipment operating in the communications network, the task indicating an action to be performed by the user equipment, the action corresponding to a module of a plurality of modules of firmware to perform the action; communicating through the network interface circuity with the user equipment to enable execution, by the processing circuitry in the user equipment
However, McDonald discloses a method, performed by processing circuity of a first node, for handling firmware, the first node operating in a communications network, the method comprising: receiving through a network interface circuitry a first indication from a second node operating in the communications network, the first indication indicating a task to be performed by a user equipment operating in the communications network, the task indicating an action to be performed by processing circuitry in the user equipment, the action corresponding to a module of a plurality of modules of firmware to be executed by the processing circuitry in the user equipment to perform the indicated action, (McDonald [0022] lines 1-4, [0023] lines 1-8, [0026] lines 1-4, [0036] lines 1-6, [0040] lines 1-5, [0045] lines 3-5, [0056] lines 20-24 and [0065] lines 1-9; which shows in a communication network have nodes/first nodes that can receive update package information from package creation service/ second node and transmit the update package/task indication the update action to be performed by the devices associated with the nodes where the update can correspond to update of the firmware/software actions, where the update can contain a plurality of modules/version delta files of the firmware, viewed as includes modules/elements/deltas of the entire plurality of modules of firmware associated with the update are not currently installed/downloaded onto the user device/node, where it is seen specifically above in the teachings of Kumar the specifics of the update of the software/firmware element/module associated with specific actions to perform);
communicating through the network interface circuity with the user equipment to enable execution, by the processing circuitry in the user equipment (McDonald [0022] lines 1-4, [0023] lines 1-8, [0026] lines 1-4 and [0045] lines 3-5; which shows communication through a communication network of nodes, thus having associated network interface circuitry, where the nodes/user devices/equipment include processors that are used to trigger actions associated with update, the specifics of an enable execution action are seen specifically disclose in the teachings of Kumar above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of McDonald showing the specifics of a communication network of nodes tied to request to download specific elements of firmware into the downloading and enabling specifically missing elements of software of Kumar for the purpose of improving the efficiency of handling software and firmware updates in a network of devices environment as taught by McDonald [0001] lines 7-14.
Kumar as modified by McDonald do not specifically discloses communicating through the network interface circuity to disable from execution by the processing circuitry in the user equipment and based on the received first indication, any other module in the plurality of modules of firmware in the memory circuitry in the user equipment lacking support for the indicated action; removing, from the memory circuitry in the user equipment, and based on the received first indication, at least one module in the plurality of modules that is determined to be lacking support for the indication action, wherein the removing increases available storage capacity in the memory circuitry in the user equipment.
However, Stewart discloses communicating through the network interface circuity to disable from execution by the processing circuitry in the user equipment and based on the received first indication, any other module in the plurality of modules of firmware in the memory circuitry in the user equipment lacking support for the indicated action (Stewart [0012] lines 1-5, [0024] lines 3-5, [0025] lines 4-7, and [0026] lines 1-6; which shows being able to disable the indicated firmware element/module response to update/action where the received update is for an indicated core firmware in memory, viewed as associated with action, where there are other firmware elements not part of the core firmware instruction, viewed as modules/elements part of the firmware that lack a type of support associated with the update action where based on the received update/indication and thus the firmware that is excluded/lacking support for the indication action of the core firmware elements is able to be disabled, where the specifics of the communication through the network to trigger actions associated with update are seen specifically disclosed in McDonald above);
removing, from the memory circuitry in the user equipment, and based on the received first indication, at least one module in the plurality of modules that is determined to be lacking support for the indication action, wherein the removing increases available storage capacity in the memory circuitry in the user equipment (Stewart [0012] lines1-5, [0024] lines 3-5, [0025] lines 4-7, [0026] lines 1-6 and [0030] lines 2-6; which shows based on update firmware information for a specific/indicated core firmware disabling the excluded firmware elements where those disabled firmware elements that are viewed as lacking support for the core firmware element functions and the deleted/removed from the memory viewed as being based on the received firmware update/indication and thus by its use would increasing available storage capacity in the memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Stewart showing the disabling elements of firmware, into the firmware update information of Kumar as modified by McDonald for the purpose of helping to improve the user control over the firmware by being able to remove unwanted portions from the firmware, as taught by Stewart [0016] lines 1-7.
Kumar as modified by McDonald and Stewart do not specifically disclose wherein disabling any other module comprises disabling capabilities in the module while the module resides in the user equipment; removing, from the memory circuitry in the user equipment, and based on the received first indication, at least one module in the plurality of modules that is determined to be disabled from execution.
However, Nakamoto discloses wherein disabling any other module comprises disabling capabilities in the module while the module resides in the user equipment (Nakamoto [0159] lines 1-5, [0160] lines 1-5, [0161] lines 1-4 and [0198] lines 1-6; which shows that firmware can be disabled when the disabled firmware is to be replaced, viewed as a type of unneeded/unnecessary, where by disabling firmware it is displaced to a location different from the appropriate storage location on the storage device where by being displaced it can be moved to a temporary storage location of the HDD viewed as still residing in the device/equipment);
removing, from the memory circuitry in the user equipment, and based on the received first indication, at least one module in the plurality of modules that is determined to be disabled from execution (Nakamoto [0159] lines 1-5, [0160] lines 1-5, [0161] lines 1-4 and [0198] lines 1-6; which shows that firmware can be disabled and then deleted when the disabled firmware is replaced, viewed as a type of determined that the firmware element is disabled, where the specifics of the removing/deleting from the memory circuity in the user equipment and based on the first received indication is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Stewart above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Nakamoto showing the specifics of disabling firmware element while still having firmware reside on the device, into the disability and deletion of unnecessary firmware elements of Kumar as modified by McDonald and Stewart for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of firmware update to determine and identify what element of firmware to move to disable and delete and what firmware elements to enable for use, as taught by Nakamoto [0158] lines 1-4 and [0160] lines 1-5.
Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart and Nakamoto do not disclose the specifics of removing, based on the received first indication and available storage capacity in the memory circuitry in the user device, at least one module in the plurality of firmware models.
However, Ruble discloses the specifics of removing, based on the received first indication and available storage capacity in the memory circuitry in the user device, at least one module in the plurality of firmware models (Ruble [0088] lines 1-13; which shows that specifics of response to a firmware update, viewed as a type of received first indication and based on available memory capacity determined as being insufficient delete previous installed firmware in memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ruble showing the specifics of removing firmware based of memory capacity conditions, into the removing firmware of Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart and Nakamoto as for the purpose of helping to effectively manage resource utilization by determining when firmware can be deleted so there is space for new firmware to be installed in memory, as taught by Ruble [0088] lines 9-13.
As to claim 31, Kumar discloses a first node of a communication network, comprising: a processing circuitry for handling firmware, the processing circuity configured to cause the first node to (Kumar [0011] lines 1-12 and [0061] lines 1-10):
The remaining limitation of this claim are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 4-5 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble as applied to claims 1 and 31 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (Patent No. US 10,721,328 B2)
As to claims 4 and 34, Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble do not specifically disclose invoking, on the user equipment and based on the received first indication, an Application Program Interface, API, corresponding to the indicated action, the invoking being further based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered.
However, Chen discloses invoking, on the user equipment and based on the received first indication, an Application Program Interface, API, corresponding to the indicated action, the invoking being further based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered. (Chen Col. 1 lines 43-58, Col. 15 line 62- Col. 16 line 16 and claim 16; which shows for a request/indication being able to invoke the API associated with the request/action where a determining can be made if the API is registered if the selected API associated with being invoked is registered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chen showing the invoking of an API associated with performing request, into the update request of Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble for the purpose of increasing user control thus increasing usability by allowing for specific selection of desired API to perform request, as taught by Chen Col. 1 lines 43-58.
As to claims 5 and 35, Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble do not specifically disclose, however, Chen discloses registering, in the user equipment, an API corresponding to the indicated action, the registering being based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered (Chen Col. 15 line 62- Col. 16 line 16 and claim 16; which shows the ability to determine in the API corresponding the an action is requested thus based on a determinization if the API is already registered or not).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chen showing the invoking of an API associated with performing request, into the update request of Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble for the purpose of increasing user control thus increasing usability by allowing for specific selection of desired API to perform request, as taught by Chen Col. 1 lines 43-58.
Claims 6 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble as applied to claims 1 and 31 above, and further in view of and further in view of Chen et al. (Patent No. US 10,721,328 B2) and Vos et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0234863 A1).
As to claims 6 and 36, Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble does not specifically disclose invoking, on the user equipment and based on the received first indication, an Application Program Interface, API, corresponding to the indicated action, the invoking being further based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered; and registering, in the user equipment, an API corresponding to the indicated action, the registering being based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered, wherein the task is comprised in a first plurality of tasks to be performed by the user equipment, as part of a plan indicated by the first indication, and wherein the method further comprises: iterating one or more of: the invoking, the downloading, the enabling and the registering, for every task comprised in the first plurality of tasks.
However, Chen discloses invoking, on the user equipment and based on the received first indication, an Application Program Interface, API, corresponding to the indicated action, the invoking being further based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered (Chen Col. 1 lines 43-58, Col. 15 line 62- Col. 16 line 16 and claim 16; which shows for a request/indication being able to invoke the API associated with the request/action where a determining can be made if the API is registered if the selected API associated with being invoked is registered);
registering, in the user equipment, an API corresponding to the indicated action, the registering being based on whether or not the API corresponding to the indicated action onto the user equipment is already registered (Chen Col. 15 line 62- Col. 16 line 16 and claim 16; which shows the ability to determine in the API corresponding to an action is requested thus based on a determinization if the API is already registered or not).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chen showing the invoking of an API associated with performing request, into the update request of Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto and Ruble for the purpose of increasing user control thus increasing usability by allowing for specific selection of desired API to perform request, as taught by Chen Col. 1 lines 43-58.
Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto, Ruble and Chen do not specifically disclose wherein the task is comprised in a first plurality of tasks to be performed by the user equipment, as part of a plan indicated by the first indication, and wherein the method further comprises: iterating one or more of: the invoking, the downloading, the enabling and the registering, for every task comprised in the first plurality of tasks.
However, Vos discloses wherein the task is comprised in a first plurality of tasks to be performed by the user equipment, as part of a plan indicated by the first indication, and wherein the method further comprises: iterating one or more of: the invoking, the downloading, the enabling and the registering, for every task comprised in the first plurality of tasks (Vos [0047] lines 1-7 and [0056] lines 1-7; which shows a group/plurality of task to be performed associated with action/updating the firmware on the device and for all the task being able to iterate through all task to be performed on the device, thus in light of the teachings of Kumar disclosed above showing the download the elements associated with the task/element/feature an with one task including at least the downloading of the software information together can be seen as for each task in the plurality associated with the updating of firmware being able to iterate though each task to performed the associated downloading and applying of the firmware update).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Vos showing the plurality of task associated with firmware update action, into the firmware update action of Kumar as modified by McDonald, Stewart, Nakamoto, Ruble and Chen for the purpose of helping to ensure functionality be being able to determine if additional task need to be performed on the device/unit thus helping to maintain correct functionality of the device, as taught by Vos [0056] lines 1-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193