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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 6/29/2026. Claims 1, 4-6 and 13 are currently pending and claims 2-3, 7-12 and 14-16 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification of this application, on pg. 11 par. 3, recites “A processor or programmable processor means a machine or an electronic circuit. A processor may in particular be a central processing unit (CPU)…A processor means a virtualized processor, a virtual machine or soft CPU... “ and as such provides conflicting definitions/meanings for “processor”, a first definition being that processor “means” a machine or an electronic circuit and a second definition being that processor “means” virtualized processor/virtual machine/soft CPU. Examiner would recommend rewording/rephrasing such that the term processor does not have multiple conflicting definitions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition module configured to…”, “a loading module configured to…”, “an assessment module configured to…”, “a determination module configured to…”, “a provisioning module configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
As per claim 13, it recites “…selecting the update configuration on the basis of optimized operating parameters and the assessment of the effects of the software update…” The examiner would like to point out that the examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “optimized” in the limitation as different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions on what may be considered “optimized”/optimum/etc. (ex: fastest speed, fewest resources used, etc.). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…selecting the update configuration on the basis of the operating parameters and the assessment of the effects of the software update…”.
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 1, 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, it recites “A configuration device for automatically determining an update configuration for a software update for a technical installation, the device comprising: an acquisition module configured to acquire operating parameters of the production process of a technical installation, wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation; a loading module configured to load software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation; an assessment module configured to perform an assessment of effects of the software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation; a determination module configured to use the operating parameters and the assessment as a basis for determining an update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation, wherein determining the update configuration includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update; and a provisioning module configured to transfer the update configuration and/or the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation to an update server; wherein the update server automatically controls and/or monitors and/or records the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration.”
The limitations “…perform an assessment of effects of the software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation…”, “…use the operating parameters and the assessment as a basis for determining an update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation, wherein determining the update configuration includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update” and “…controls and/or monitors and/or records the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration”, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judge/evaluate/analyze/assess/etc. effects of an update on performance parameters, may mentally/with men and paper/etc. judge/decide/determine/etc. an update configuration/operating specification/etc. based on/by evaluating/etc. parameters and the assessment, and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judged/decide/determine/control/etc. software update based on the update configuration or observe/monitor/etc. the software update or write/keep a record of/record/etc. the update. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite the abstract idea of a mental process and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “A configuration device for automatically determining an update configuration for a software update for a technical installation, the device comprising: an acquisition module configured to… a loading module configured to…an assessment module configured to…a determination module configured to… a provisioning module configured to…and…an update server; wherein the update server automatically…”, “acquire operating parameters of a production process of the technical installation, wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation”, “load software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation”, “transfer the update configuration and/or the software updates to an update server”, and “records the software update of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration.” The additional elements/limitations “A configuration device for automatically determining an update configuration for a software update for a technical installation, the device comprising: an acquisition module configured to… a loading module configured to… an assessment module configured to…a determination module configured to… a provisioning module configured to…and…an update server; wherein the update server automatically…” recite that high level/generic computer/computer components/device/modules/server/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application. The additional elements/limitations “acquire operating parameters of a production process of the technical installation, wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation”, “load software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation”, “transfer the update configuration and/or the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation to an update server”, and “records the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/obtaining/acquiring data/parameters, gathering/obtaining/storing/loading/etc. data/updates, transmitting/transferring data/configuration, and transmitting data, and storing/saving/recording data/software update, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc..
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or computer components which does not provide an inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, and mere insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/obtaining/acquiring data/parameters, gathering/obtaining/storing/loading/etc. data/updates, transmitting/transferring data/configuration, and transmitting data, and storing/saving/recording data/software update, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “… wherein determining the update configuration depends on: an update duration; and/or a rollback time to a state before the software update, and/or whether a restart of elements of the technical installation is necessary or whether a live update for the technical installation is possible; and/or what effects the software update has on the technical installation and/or applicable elements of the technical installation during the software update and/or after the software update; and/or an expected temperature increase for one or more processors of the technical installation and/or for applicable elements of the technical installation; and/or a required storage space and processor power for the software update; and/or a software compatibility with the existing software and the software update; and/or license requirements; and/or an effect on the technical installation of the software updates for multiple elements of the technical installation; and/or a compatibility between updated and unupdated elements of the technical installation; and/or whether the software update is performable automatically or a manual intervention is required; and/or necessary access rights; and/or whether an automated check on manually performed steps is performable; and/or whether the software update for an applicable element indicates how said element needs to be installed; and/or empirical values from updates performed earlier are implemented as improvement” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judgement/determining performed/further clarification as to data/information/specification/etc. used in performing the abstract idea/mental process/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein performance of the software updates is simulated in order to determine effects of performance of the software updates on the technical installation using a simulation” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the performance of the abstract idea/mental process/the judging/determining/deciding/ etc. performed, and the limitation “performance of the software update of the technical installation is simulated” does not require any particular application of the recited determining/judging/deciding/etc. and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception does not provide an inventive concept. As such, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claims 1 and 5, upon which it depends, and further recites “… wherein: the simulation additionally simulates effects of performance of the software update on the production process; and/or the simulation additionally simulates effects of the software update on the production process” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to simulation upon which the determining/judging/deciding/mental process is based, but does not require any particular application of the recited determining/judging/deciding/etc. and is therefore at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception does not provide an inventive concept. As such, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 13, it recites a method comprising similar limitations as the configuration device for determining an update configuration for a technical installation of independent claims 1 and as such recites a similar abstract idea and has similar deficiencies as claim 1. Claim 13 recites the further elements/limitations “assessing the operating parameters of the production process of the technical installation” and “selecting the update configuration on the basis of optimized operating parameters and the assessment of the effects of the software update” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to mental process/abstract idea/judgement/deciding/analyzing/assessing operating parameters/selecting update configuration/etc. performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such the additional elements of claim 13 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 13 is rejected for similar reasoning as claims 1, above.
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, 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum et al. (herein called Daum) (US PG Pub. 2014/0059534 A1), Talluri et al. (herein called Talluri) (US Patent 10,635,566 B1), and Chao et al. (herein called Chao) (US PG Pub. 2015/0358810 A1).
As per claim 1, Daum teaches: a configuration device for automatically determining an update configuration for a software update for a technical installation, the device comprising:
an acquisition module configured to acquire operating parameters of a production process of the technical installation, wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation (pars. [0001], [0007], [0050], [0070], [0073], [0075], [0087], assets are mobile/stationary assets such as electronic devices/computers/equipment/vehicles/etc. having software applications that are maintained/updated/etc. such as business applications/entertainment applications/control systems/etc. (production process of technical application/software applications on asset/computer/device/equipment/vehicle/ etc.), and current configuration file indicating current configuration of software application of asset includes software architectures of software application/components of software application/configuration state of software application/etc. (operating parameters comprising configuration parameters of production process/software applications of asset) are made available/included in/stored by/etc. (acquired by) data hub (acquire operating parameters/current configuration/etc. of a production process of a technical installation/software applications of asset/etc., wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation/current configuration file/configuration state/software architecture/components of software application/etc.).);
a loading module configured to load software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation (pars. [0003], [0007], [0076], [0083]-[0084], [0102], software updates of software applications of asset/device/computer/equipment/etc. (software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation/software applications of the computer/device/equipment/asset/etc.) is received/stored/etc. (loaded) at data hub.);
an assessment module configured to perform an assessment of effects of the software updates (pars. [0085], [0088], [0091], [0095]-[0097], determination is made by data hub as to whether intended/new/updated/etc. version/configuration/state/etc. of software is latest version, whether intended/new/updated/etc. configuration is compatible with the asset/current configuration/current software applications of asset/operating parameters/etc. of the technical installation, etc. (perform assessment/determination of effects of software update) data hub applies updated configuration to current configuration/operating parameters/updates current configuration/operating parameters to updated configuration/etc., data hub reorders/cancels/etc. configuration update based on criticality/compatibility/availability of software components/configuration. As the data hub determines/assesses a latest version/configuration/etc. of the software, a compatibility/criticality/order of configuration updates/application of configuration updates/etc. of the software configuration, etc. an assessment of effects of the software updates is made by the data hub to determine/assess whether update makes software latest version, compatibility/criticality/order of update of software configuration/apply updated configuration/etc./effects of the software updates.);
a determination module configured to use the operating parameters and the assessment as a basis for determining an update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation (pars. [0077], [0079], [0085], [0088]-[0091], [0095]-[0097] [0102], [0111]-[0012], new/updated configuration file is updated configuration state of software application with the software updates (new/updated configuration is update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation) and is received/applied/determined by data hub, data hub determines whether updates are latest version/compatibility/criticality of updates and whether to cancel the updates, and updated/new configuration of software application/update configuration/etc. may be updated version of current configuration/rearranged software components/operating parameters that includes updating current configuration/operating parameters/etc. and updating software application by applying the software updates to the software application. As the new/updated configuration file is an updated configuration state of software application with the software updates on the asset it is an update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation, and as the software updates are applied to the software application on the asset and the current software configuration/operating parameters of the asset is updated to get/determine/apply/etc. the update configuration/new configuration/etc. after the data hub has determined/assessed/etc. to apply the updates, the operating parameters and the assessment are the basis for determining/getting/applying/etc. the update/new configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation/the update configuration is based on operating parameters and the assessment.); and
a provisioning module configured to transfer the update configuration and/or the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation to an update server (pars. [0082]-[0083], [0086], [0102], data hub (update server) receives and stores new configuration file and software updates from remote/service location (update configuration/new configuration and/or software updates are transferred/received/etc. to update server/data hub).);
wherein the update server automatically controls and/or monitors and/or records the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration (pars. [0088]-[0089], [0092]-[0093], [0099], [0104]-[0105], data hub/update server manages updates of software application of asset to updated configuration state which includes applying updated configuration to software application including applying software updates, updating current configuration file to the updated configuration file, etc. (automatically control the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation/software applications of the asset/device/etc. on the basis of the update configuration), determining whether the update was successful (monitor the software update on the basis of the update configuration), record/store log tracking update/update history/etc. (record the software updates on the basis of the update configuration), etc..).
While Daum teaches an assessment/determination of the effects of the software update, it does not explicitly state, however Talluri teaches:
an assessment module configured to perform an assessment of effects of the software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation (col. 23 lines 5-20, col. 25 lines 1-6, 18-42, IDE receives code change (software updates) and determines code performance impact/predicts impact on functionality of code/predicts impact on runtime performance metrices/etc. of the code changes/software updates (perform assessment of effects of software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation),such as differences in runtime performance, increase in latency, errors, etc. As a prediction/determination/assessment/etc. is made on the effect/impact/etc. of code changes/software updates on runtime performance metrics/performance parameters, and as Daum teaches that software may be a production process of the technical installation, as seen above, it is obvious that the assessment/prediction/determination/etc. of the impact/effect of the code change/software update on the runtime performance parameters/performance metrics of the software is an assessment of effects of the software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an assessment module configured to perform an assessment of effects of the software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation, as conceptually taught by Talluri, into that of Daum because these modifications allow for the effect/impact of the software update/code changes on execution/runtime performance to be predicted/estimated/determined/etc. before applying/implementing/etc. the changes, which is desirable as it allows for more/additional/etc. information to be used when determining whether to implement/apply updates/changes so that the software/production process operates as desired after updating, thereby helping to ensure that the software/production process/etc. operates correctly/as desired/etc.
Daum and Talluri do not explicitly state, however Chao teaches:
wherein determining the update configuration includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update (pars. [0050]-[0052], [0056], [0058], [0092]-[0093], software configuration (specifications) controls (restricts) the manner of processing data during execution of software by processor, such as the speed at which data is processed, amount of data processed, pauses in processing data, functionalities used when processing data, etc. (software configuration/ specification controls/restricts operation of the technical installation/software), and software configuration may be updated/changed to second configuration/update configuration (after performance of software update) allowing for/having/restricting/etc. different processing speed/using different protocols/processing different amount of information/etc. during execution/operation. As software configuration controls/restricts operation/execution/etc. of the software/technical installation and the software is updated to second configuration having different operation/execution/etc. than first configuration, the update configuration includes operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation after the performance of the software update, and as such it is obvious that determining the update configuration (from Daum) includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein determining the update configuration includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update, as conceptually taught by Chao, into that of Daum and Talluri because these modifications allow for the software configuration to control/restrict operation of the software and for the operation/execution of the software to change when updating/changing the configuration, which is desirable as it helps ensure that the software operates as desired by allowing for the configuration to be changed/updated as needed for the software to operate as desired, thereby increasing control over the software increasing software usability and making it more desirable to users.
As per claim 4, Daum further teaches: wherein determining the update configuration depends on:
an update duration for applicable elements of the technical installation; and/or
a rollback time to a state before the software update of the applicable elements of the technical installation, and/or
whether a restart for the applicable elements of the technical installation is necessary or whether a live update for the technical installation is possible; and/or
what effects the software update has on the technical installation and/or applicable elements of the technical installation during the software update and/or after the software update; and/or
an expected temperature increase for one or more processors of the technical installation and/or for applicable elements of the technical installation; and/or
a required storage space and processor power for the software update; and/or
a software compatibility with the existing software and the software update (pars. [0085],-[0086], [0091], [0095], determination is made that the intended version of software/software update is compatible with the software application of the asset/existing software/etc./verification of updated configuration of software application with current configuration of software is performed/etc. (a software compatibility with existing software/software of asset/current configuration of software/etc. and the software update/updated software configuration/etc.).); and/or
license requirements; and/or
an effect on the technical installation in the event of the software updates for multiple elements of the technical installation; and/or
a compatibility between updated and unupdated elements of the technical installation; and/or
whether the software update is performable automatically or a manual intervention is required (pars. [0076], [0079], [0089]-[0091], datahub automatically initiates/applies/determines/etc. updated/new configuration file and automatically updates the software application/applies software updates/etc. (software update is performable automatically) or may be performed manually); and/or
necessary access rights; and/or
whether an automated check on manually performed steps is performable; and/or
whether the software update for an applicable element indicates how said element needs to be installed; and/or
empirical values from updates performed earlier and may implement said empirical values in the form of improvements.
As per claim 13, it recites a method for determining an update configuration for a software update for a technical installation, the method comprising:
acquiring operating parameters of a production process of the technical installation, wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation (pars. [0001], [0007], [0050], [0070], [0073], [0075], [0087], assets are mobile/stationary assets such as electronic devices/computers/equipment/vehicles/etc. having software applications that are maintained/updated/etc. such as business applications/entertainment applications/control systems/etc. (production process of technical application/software applications on asset/computer/device/equipment/vehicle/ etc.), and current configuration file indicating current configuration of software application of asset includes software architectures of software application/components of software application/configuration state of software application/etc. (operating parameters comprising configuration parameters of production process/software applications of asset) are made available/included in/stored by/etc. (acquired by) data hub (acquire operating parameters/current configuration/etc. of a production process of a technical installation/software applications of asset/etc., wherein the operating parameters comprise configuration parameters of the technical installation/current configuration file/configuration state/software architecture/components of software application/etc.).);
assessing the operating parameters of the production process of the technical installation (pars. [0085], [0088], [0091], [0095]-[0097], determination is made by data hub as to whether intended/new/updated/etc. configuration is compatible with the asset/current configuration/current software applications of asset/operating parameters/etc. of the technical installation, data hub applies updated configuration to current configuration/operating parameters/updates current configuration/operating parameters to updated configuration/etc., data hub reorders/cancels/etc. configuration update based on criticality/compatibility/availability of software components/configuration. As the data hub determines compatibility/criticality/order of configuration updates/application of configuration updates/etc. of the software configuration of the asset/operating parameters of the production process of the technical installation, an assessment of the operating parameters/configuration/etc. is made by the data hub to determine compatibility/criticality/order of update of software configuration/apply updated configuration/etc.);
loading the software update for one or more elements of the technical installation (pars. [0003], [0007], [0076], [0083]-[0084], [0102], software updates of software applications of asset/device/computer/equipment/etc. (software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation/software applications of the computer/device/equipment/asset/etc.) is received/stored/etc. (loaded) at data hub.);
performing an assessment of effects of the software update (pars. [0085], [0088], [0091], [0095]-[0097], determination is made by data hub as to whether intended/new/updated/etc. version/configuration/state/etc. of software is latest version, whether intended/new/updated/etc. configuration is compatible with the asset/current configuration/current software applications of asset/operating parameters/etc. of the technical installation, etc. (perform assessment/determination of effects of software update) data hub applies updated configuration to current configuration/operating parameters/updates current configuration/operating parameters to updated configuration/etc., data hub reorders/cancels/etc. configuration update based on criticality/compatibility/availability of software components/configuration. As the data hub determines/assesses a latest version/configuration/etc. of the software, a compatibility/criticality/order of configuration updates/application of configuration updates/etc. of the software configuration, etc. an assessment of effects of the software updates is made by the data hub to determine/assess whether update makes software latest version, compatibility/criticality/order of update of software configuration/apply updated configuration/etc./effects of the software updates.);
determining an update configuration on the basis of the operating parameters and the software update (pars. [0077], [0079], [0085], [0088]-[0091], [0095]-[0097] [0102], [0111]-[0012], new/updated configuration file is updated configuration state of software application with the software updates (new/updated configuration is update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation) and is received/applied/determined by data hub, data hub determines whether updates are latest version/compatibility/criticality of updates and whether to cancel the updates, and updated/new configuration of software application/update configuration/etc. may be updated version of current configuration/rearranged software components/operating parameters that includes updating current configuration/operating parameters/etc. and updating software application by applying the software updates to the software application. As the new/updated configuration file is an updated configuration state of software application with the software updates on the asset it is an update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation, and as the software updates are applied to the software application on the asset and the current software configuration/operating parameters of the asset is updated to get/determine/apply/etc. the update configuration/new configuration/etc. after the data hub has determined/assessed/etc. to apply the updates, the operating parameters and the software update are the basis for determining/getting/applying/etc. the update/new configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation/the update configuration is based on operating parameters and the assessment.);
selecting the update configuration on the basis of optimized operating parameters and the assessment of the effects of the software update(pars. [0077], [0079], [0085], [0088]-[0091], [0095]-[0097] [0102], [0111]-[0012], data hub determines/assesses whether intended/new/updated/etc. version/configuration/ state/etc. of software is latest version, whether intended/new/updated/etc. configuration is compatible with the asset/current configuration/current software applications of asset/operating parameters/etc. of the technical installation, etc. and data hub determines to update configuration/selects update configuration when new/updated/latest configuration file is received that is updated version of current configuration/rearranged software components/operating parameters that includes updating current configuration/operating parameters/etc. As the new/updated configuration file is an updated configuration state of software application with the software updates on the asset it is an update configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation, and as the software updates are applied to the software application on the asset and the current software configuration/operating parameters of the asset is updated to get/determine/apply/etc. the update configuration/new configuration/etc. after the data hub has determined/assessed/etc. to apply the updates, the operating parameters and the software update and the assessment of the effects of the software update are the basis for determining/getting/applying/etc. the update/new configuration for the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation/the update configuration is based on operating parameters and the assessment.);
transferring the selected update configuration and/or the software update to an update server (pars. [0082]-[0083], [0086], [0102], data hub (update server) receives and stores new configuration file and software updates from remote/service location (update configuration/new configuration and/or software updates are transferred/received/etc. to update server/data hub).);
wherein the update server controls and/or monitors and/or records the software update of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration (pars. [0088]-[0089], [0092]-[0093], [0099], [0104]-[0105], data hub/update server manages updates of software application of asset to updated configuration state which includes applying updated configuration to software application including applying software updates, updating current configuration file to the updated configuration file, etc. (automatically control the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation/software applications of the asset/device/etc. on the basis of the update configuration), determining whether the update was successful (monitor the software update on the basis of the update configuration), record/store log tracking update/update history/etc. (record the software updates on the basis of the update configuration), etc..).
While Daum teaches an assessment/determination of the effects of the software update, it does not explicitly state, however Talluri teaches:
performing an assessment of effects of the software update on performance parameters of the production process of the technical installation (col. 23 lines 5-20, col. 25 lines 1-6, 18-42, IDE receives code change (software updates) and determines code performance impact/predicts impact on functionality of code/predicts impact on runtime performance metrices/etc. of the code changes/software updates (perform assessment of effects of software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation),such as differences in runtime performance, increase in latency, errors, etc. As a prediction/determination/assessment/etc. is made on the effect/impact/etc. of code changes/software updates on runtime performance metrics/performance parameters, and as Daum teaches that software may be a production process of the technical installation, as seen above, it is obvious that the assessment/prediction/determination/etc. of the impact/effect of the code change/software update on the runtime performance parameters/performance metrics of the software is an assessment of effects of the software updates on performance parameters of a production process of the technical installation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add performing an assessment of effects of the software update on performance parameters of the production process of the technical installation, as conceptually taught by Talluri, into that of Daum because these modifications allow for the effect/impact of the software update/code changes on execution/runtime performance to be predicted/estimated/determined/etc. before applying/implementing/etc. the changes, which is desirable as it allows for more/additional/etc. information to be used when determining whether to implement/apply updates/changes so that the software/production process operates as desired after updating, thereby helping to ensure that the software/production process/etc. operates correctly/as desired/etc.
Daum and Talluri do not explicitly state, however Chao teaches:
wherein determining the update configuration includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update (pars. [0050]-[0052], [0056], [0058], [0092]-[0093], software configuration (specifications) controls (restricts) the manner of processing data during execution of software by processor, such as the speed at which data is processed, amount of data processed, pauses in processing data, functionalities used when processing data, etc. (software configuration/ specification controls/restricts operation of the technical installation/software), and software configuration may be updated/changed to second configuration/update configuration (after performance of software update) allowing for/having/restricting/etc. different processing speed/using different protocols/processing different amount of information/etc. during execution/operation. As software configuration controls/restricts operation/execution/etc. of the software/technical installation and the software is updated to second configuration having different operation/execution/etc. than first configuration, the update configuration includes operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation after the performance of the software update, and as such it is obvious that determining the update configuration (from Daum) includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein determining the update configuration includes determining operating specifications comprising specifications restricting operation of the technical installation during and/or after the performance of the software update, as conceptually taught by Chao, into that of Daum and Talluri because these modifications allow for the software configuration to control/restrict operation of the software and for the operation/execution of the software to change when updating/changing the configuration, which is desirable as it helps ensure that the software operates as desired by allowing for the configuration to be changed/updated as needed for the software to operate as desired, thereby increasing control over the software increasing software usability and making it more desirable to users.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum et al. (herein called Daum) (US PG Pub. 2014/0059534 A1), Talluri et al. (herein called Talluri) (US Patent 10,635,566 B1), and Chao et al. (herein called Chao) (US PG Pub. 2015/0358810 A1), in further view of Chen et al. (herein called Chen) (US PG Pub. 2014/0297589 A1).
As per claim 5, Daum, Talluri, and Chao do not explicitly state, however Chen teaches:
wherein performance of the software updates is simulated in order to determine effects of performance of the software updates on the technical installation using a simulation (pars. [0063]-[0065], simulation/preview module simulates changes to target files/source files (software/configuration update/changes to software/configuration of asset from Daum) before changes/updates are applied/implemented and simulates functionality of computing environment (asset/computer/technical installation of Daum), and identifies the impact of implementing changes/performing the software update/etc. to the target files/source files (performance of software update/applying changes to target files/etc. is simulated to determine effects/identify impact/etc. of performing software update/applying changes/etc. on the technical installation/computing environment).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein performance of the software updates is simulated in order to determine effects of performance of the software updates on the technical installation using a simulation, as conceptually taught by Chen, into that of Daum, Talluri, and Chao because these modifications allow for the effect/impact/etc. of the software update/changes/etc. to be determined/identified before the changes are actually implemented/applied/performed/etc., which is desirable as it allow for errors/undesirable effects/etc. to be made known before performing the update/applying the changes/etc. and allows for a user to know that functionality/performance of the computer/environment/technical installation will be desirable after the updates/changes are applied/performed/etc., thereby helping to prevent errors and ensure that the software application and computer/device/etc. operates correctly/as desired by users.
As per claim 6, Daum, Talluri, and Chao do not explicitly state, however Chen teaches: wherein:
the simulation additionally simulates effects of performance of the software update on the production process; and/or the simulation additionally simulates effects of the software update on the production process (pars. [0022], [0063]-[0065], simulation/preview module simulates changes/updates to target files/source files (software/configuration update/changes to software/configuration of asset from Daum) before changes/updates are applied/implemented and simulates functionality of computing environment (asset/computer/technical installation of Daum), and identifies the impact of implementing changes/performing the software update/etc. to the target files/source files such as the efficacy of a change to a source file/target file (simulates effects of the performance of the software update on the production process/software/source files of software of computing environment/etc.), the functionality of the computer environment after applying the changes/impact of the changes on functionality and the impact of changes on operation of resources (simulation simulates effects/impact of the software update/changes/etc. on the production process/software/source files/resources/software/functionality/operation of resources/software of environment/etc.).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the simulation additionally simulates effects of the performance of software update on the production process; and/or the simulation additionally simulates effects of the software update on the production process, as conceptually taught by Chen, into that of Daum, Talluri, and Chao because these modifications allow for the effect/impact/etc. of the software update/changes/etc. to be determined/identified before the changes are actually implemented/applied/performed, which is desirable as it allow for errors/undesirable effects/etc. to be made known before performing the update/applying the changes/etc. and allows for a user to know that functionality/performance of the computer/environment/technical installation will be desirable after the updates/changes are applied/performed/etc., thereby helping to prevent errors and ensure that the software application and computer/device/etc. operates correctly/as desired by users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the assertion on pg. 6 par. 3 of the remarks that claim 13 has been amended to overcome the 112 issues and is therefore allowable under 35 USC 112, the examiner would like to point out that the amendments to claim 13 raise further 112 issues, as seen above in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112.
Therefore, the examiner finds this assertion unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 112 is proper.
As per the 101 assertion on pg. 6 par. 4-pg. 7 par. 1 of the remarks that the amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea/mental process/etc. because a human cannot load software updates for one or more elements of the technical installation, transfer the update configuration and/or the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation to an update server, and automatically control and/or monitor and/or record the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration, as required by the amended independent claims, and therefore the independent claims do not recite a mental process and are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would like to point out that a human mind/with the aid of pen and paper/etc. can monitor and/or record the software updates of the one or more elements of the technical installation on the basis of the update configuration as, with broadest reasonable interpretation "monitor" may be interpreted as observing/watching/judging/analyzing/etc. which a human can do mentally, and "record" may be interpreted as a human writing/keeping a written record of/remembering/etc. which a human can do mentally/with the aid of pen and paper/etc.. Additionally, the examiner would like to point out that the limitations "load software updates..." and "transfer the update configuration..." are known/routing/conventional/etc. computer functions/ operations of loading and transferring and as such are insignificant extra solution activities and the courts have identified functions such as transmitting/transferring and storing/loading data/software updates/ update configuration/etc. As well understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and as such these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended independent claims do recite an abstract idea/mental process and the additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 above.
Therefore, the examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Applicant’s 103 arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As per the 103 arguments on pg. 7 par. 3-pg. 10 par. 1 of the remarks that Daum et al. (herein called Daum) (US PG Pub. 2014/0059534 A1) and Talluri et al. (herein called Talluri) (US Patent 10,635,566 B1) do not teach all features/limitations of the amended independent claims, and the other references cited with respect to the dependent claims fail to correct the deficiencies of Daum and Talluri, and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would like to point out that the new reference Chao et al. (herein called Chao) (US PG Pub. 2015/0358810 A1) is currently relied upon to correct the deficiencies of Daum and Talluri, and therefore the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 103 is proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koo et al. US PG Pub. 2014/0208216 A1 teaches that software/application configuration controls the behavior of application during execution/operation and that the configuration may be updated/changed to adjust/allow/enable/change/etc. operation of the software.
Nakanishi et al US PG Pub. 2012/0030442 A1 teaches that program/software specifications/configuration/etc. may include restriction information that is used to restrict operation/function/capabilities/etc. of computers during operation/execution/etc. of software.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights