DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on December 30, 2025 in this application Teo, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/034,208 (Filed April 27, 2023) claiming priority to PCT/CN2020/125462 (Filed October 30, 2020). Claims 1 – 19 are pending. Claims 1, 3 – 8, and 12 – 17 are amended. Claims 1 – 19 are pending.
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 6 – 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks (“Remarks”) stating that the claim amendments overcome the 101 rejections as being both practical applications and significantly more than any abstract idea, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the various claimed server instructions the functionality of the instructions may be to merely transmit to or save at the server the previous functional step that represents an abstract idea which may be performed by the user. No details have been claimed as to the implementation of the various server instructions.
In light of this, the claimed server instructions are an additional element directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission or storage that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission or storage is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
2. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 8 - 9 of the Remarks stating that Mani fails to teach using a server, examiner respectfully neither agrees nor disagrees, however this argument is moot in light of the addition of prior art reference Swann to the double patenting rejection as necessitated by applicant’s amendment which is used to teach the server. See infra § Claim Rejections - Double Patenting. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under Double Patenting.
3. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pg. 10 of the Remarks stating that Swann fails to teach a management end server that provides the claimed instructions, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 § Claim 1.
Swann teaches that a server-based management end such as an application update server is used to maintain the applications applicable for the mobile device and to communicate to the mobile device, in some cases via the installation manager, commands instructing the mobile device on which updates to install, this includes the server editing the application list by adding and removing apps, sending aps to the mobile device, determining if they are to be applied, and grouping the mobile device based on whether it should or should not receive a particular update. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040.
Therefore, the prior art teaches a management end server that provides the claimed instructions.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to for the following informality: “based an adding” should read “based on an adding”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 - 9 and 12 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more.
1. Claims 1 and 10 do not recite an abstract idea and are not rejected under 35 USC 101
2. Claims 2 and 11 do not recite an abstract idea and are not rejected under 35 USC 101
3. Claims 3 and 12 recite a user to adjust application parameters in the application list, wherein the application parameters comprise at least one of a version number, an icon, a size, a download address or a name; which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting additional elements of generic computer components as well as insignificant extra-solution data transmission and storage nothing in the claim elements precludes the user adjustment from being performed by a user using the server computer as a tool to record the parameter setting. See MPEP 2106.05(g); see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). As drafted, the claimed process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution data transmission and storage, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite insignificant extra-solution data transmission and storage. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the identified additional elements of data transmission and storage are functions that have been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
4. Claims 4 and 13 recite the abstract idea of adding applications corresponding to the installation package to the application list, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper. The claims contain additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission to the server that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
5. Claims 5 and 14 recite the abstract idea of selecting a target application from the updated application list; and selecting a target smart interaction tablet from the device list, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper. The claims contain additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
6. Claims 6 and 15 recite the abstract idea of classifying at least part of applications in the application list, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper. The claims contain additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
7. Claims 7 and 16 recite the abstract idea of adding or deleting smart interaction tablets comprised in the terminal according to the device list, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper. The claims contain additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
8. Claims 8 and 17 recite the abstract idea of grouping the at least one smart interaction tablet according to the device list, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper. The claims contain additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
9. Claims 9 and 18 recite the same abstract idea as the claims from which they depend and contain additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution data transmission that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), and that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data transmission is a function that has been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
10. Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of verify legitimacy of the management end and the terminal, and manage the applications of the terminal in response to the management end and the terminal being legal, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper. The claim fails recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g), or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claims 1 and 10 and also 9 and 18 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 and also 1 and 13 respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,665,255. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘255 Patent anticipate the claims of the instant application with the exception of the limitations “control instruction for managing a set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet, wherein the set of applications comprises at least one application; … the control instruction … smart interaction tablet,/ and respond to the control instruction,/ such that the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet is updated,” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Mani (see infra) which teaches updating the software of Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices, such as tablet devices, may include sending the update to an active device in a group, and then from there the update is distributed to, and caused to be installed in, the other tablet devices of the group either via the active device or a remote server. Mani at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0064 – 0069 and 0117; id. at fig. 1E. One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘255 Patent for the purpose of using a known method of sending updated application data to terminal devices with a method that sends updated data to terminal devices.
Also with the exception of the limitations “applied to a management end comprising a server,” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Swann (see infra) which teaches a server based management end is used to direct the update distribution such as by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets). One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘255 Patent for the purpose of using a known method of controlling update distribution to devices with a method that sends updates to devices.
Dependent claims 2 – 8, 11 – 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 11,665,255. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the ‘255 Application and the art used infra to teach the dependent claims and associated motivation.
2. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, of U.S. Patent No. 11,797,296. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘296 Patent anticipate the claims of the instant application with the exception of the limitations “at least one smart interaction tablet, smart interaction tablet,/ and respond to the control instruction,/ such that the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet is updated,” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Mani (see infra) which teaches updating the software of Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices, such as tablet devices, may include sending the update to an active device in a group, and then from there the update is distributed to, and caused to be installed in, the other tablet devices of the group either via the active device or a remote server. Mani at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0064 – 0069 and 0117; id. at fig. 1E. One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘296 Patent for the purpose of using a known method of sending application updates to devices with a method that sends updated application data to terminal devices.
Also with the exception of the limitations “applied to a management end comprising a server,” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Swann (see infra) which teaches a server based management end is used to direct the update distribution such as by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets). One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘296 Patent for the purpose of using a known method of controlling update distribution to devices with a method that sends updates to devices.
Dependent claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 19 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 11,797,296. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the ‘296 Application and the art used infra to teach the dependent claims and associated motivation.
35 USC § 112(f)
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: “management end is configured to,” “terminal is configured to, “server is configured to,” “gateway being configured to”, in claims 10 - 19.
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 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10, 12 – 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0074195 (Published March 12, 2015, filed August 28, 2014) (“Mani”) in view of Swann, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0088026 (Published April 14, 2011, filed October 9, 2009) (“Swann”).
Claims 1 and 10
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Mani teaches the invention as claimed including an application management method for a terminal, …wherein the terminal comprises at least one smart interaction tablet, and the application management method comprises: obtaining a control instruction for managing a set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet, wherein the set of applications comprises at least one application; and sending the control instruction to the at least one smart interaction tablet,/ and respond to the control instruction,/ such that the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet is updated according to the control instruction. {A method for updating the software of Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices, such as tablet devices, may include selecting one or more groups of a plurality of groups of the tablet devices for software updating, sending the update to an active device in a group, and then from there the update is distributed to, and caused to be installed in, the other tablet devices of the group either via the active device or a remote server. Mani at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0064 – 0069 and 0117; id. at fig. 1E.}
However, Mani doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
applied to a management end comprising a server, {Swann does teach this limitation. Swann teaches that the method for receiving and distributing updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani, may include where a management end, such as an installation manager is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).
Mani and Swann are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software updating, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to identify the updates for installation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine receiving and distributing updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani, with using a manager to direct the update process, as taught in Swann. Swann teaches that it is important to “reduce unnecessary usage of network bandwidth” when performing device updates. Swann at ¶ 0109. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine receiving and distributing updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani, with using a manager to direct the update process, as taught in Swann, for the purpose of using a known method to prevent the transmission of unneeded optional updates to target devices with a method of updating target devices that requires reducing the usage of unnecessary network bandwidth.}
Claims 3 and 12
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein before the obtaining the control instruction for managing the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet, the method further comprises: / wherein the management end comprises a server, and the server is configured to:/ obtaining an application list; receiving an editing operation used by a user to adjust application parameters in the application list, wherein the application parameters comprise at least one of a version number, an icon, a size, a download address or a name; and obtaining an updated application list based on an editing operation instruction of the server in response to the editing operation. {A server-based management end, such as an installation manager, is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).}
Claims 4 and 13
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein before the obtaining the control instruction for managing the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet, the method further comprises: obtaining an installation package; and adding applications corresponding to the installation package to the application list based on an adding instruction of the server, and obtaining an updated application list. {A server-based management end, such as an installation manager, is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).}
Claims 5 and 14
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein after the obtaining the updated application list, the method further comprises: selecting a target application from the updated application list; obtaining a device list comprising the at least one smart interaction tablet, and selecting a target smart interaction tablet from the device list; and pushing a selected target application to the target smart interaction tablet based on a pushing instruction of the server. {A server-based management end, such as an installation manager, is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).}
Claims 6 and 15
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein after the obtaining the application list, the method further comprises: classifying at least part of applications in the application list based on a classifying instruction of the server. {A server-based management end, such as an installation manager, is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list of updates classified into optional and non-optional updates to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).}
Claims 7 and 16
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
obtaining a device list comprising the at least one smart interaction tablet; and adding or deleting smart interaction tablets comprised in the terminal according to the device list based on an adding-deleting instruction of the server. {A server-based management end, such as an installation manager, is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).}
Claims 8 and 17
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein after the obtaining the device list comprising the at least one smart interaction tablet, the method further comprises: [grouping] the at least one smart interaction tablet according to the device list based on a [grouping] instruction of the server. {A server-based management end, such as an installation manager, is used to direct the update distribution by using an application update server to continuously search for and obtain updates available for applications on a set of devices, while also maintaining a list of device ids and the applications currently installed on the devices, and using a licensing server to send a list of the application updates applicable for particular tablet devices to the update server, which may then send to the installation manager a list of the particular updates available and applicable for particular tablet devices, where the installation manager may then present a user interface displaying the list of the available and applicable updates for each device where the user can use the user interface to edit the list of updates classified into optional and non-optional updates to identify which optional updates to install by selecting or deselecting check box icons for the name/version of updates, following which updates from the edited list are distributed to and installed in the tablet devices. Swann at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0027 – 0033 and 0036 – 0040; id. at ¶ 0045 (select only applicable update targets).}
grouping {One or more groups of a plurality of groups of the tablet devices may be selected for software updating. Mani at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0064 – 0069 and 0117; id. at fig. 1E.}
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
further comprising a verification gateway: the verification gateway being configured to verify legitimacy of the management end and the terminal, and manage the applications of the terminal in response to the management end and the terminal being legal. {Secured, authenticated, connections are implemented for communication between the active device and the update targets. Mani at ¶¶ 0089 & 0090-0092.}
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani in view of Swann and Maloney et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0019446 (Published January 20, 2022, filed July 16, 2020) (“Maloney”).
Claims 2 and 11
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the sending the control instruction to the at least one smart interaction tablet, such that the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet is updated according to the control instruction, comprises: sending the control instruction to the at least one smart interaction tablet, {Updates may be transmitted using an IoT communication protocol. Mani at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0064 – 0069 and 0117; id. at fig. 1E; id. at ¶¶ 0059, 0090, 0108 (protocol for communication).}
However, Mani and Swann don’t explicitly teach the limitation:
such that the at least one smart interaction tablet calls a Framework layer through a management application installed on the at least one smart interaction tablet to control the set of applications in the at least one smart interaction tablet to be in silent updating. {Maloney does teach this limitation. Maloney teaches that the method for using an IoT communication protocol to distribute updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani and Swann, may include using a framework such as a configuration tool that can perform a silent installation of a software update. Maloney at ¶¶ 0061, 0063, 0067, 0069, 0070, 0100.
Mani, Swann, and Maloney are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software updating, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deliver the updates for installation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using distributing updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani and Swann, with using a silent installation, as taught in Maloney. Maloney teaches that its target device may include a tablet. Maloney at ¶ 0043. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using distributing updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani and Swann, with using a silent installation, as taught in Maloney, for the purpose of using a known silent tablet update process to update tablet devices.}
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani in view of Swann and Du, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0083326 (Published March 17, 2022, filed October 26, 2020) (“Du”).
Claims 9 and 18
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Mani and Swann, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the sending the control instruction to the at least one smart interaction tablet comprises: sending the control instruction to the at least one smart interaction tablet through a …protocol. {Updates may be transmitted using an IoT communication protocol. Mani at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0064 – 0069 and 0117; id. at fig. 1E; id. at ¶¶ 0059, 0090, 0108 (protocol for communication).}
However, Mani and Swann don’t explicitly teach the limitation:
Message Queuing Telemetry Transport, MQTT, protocol or an Internet of Thins, IOT, {Du does teach this limitation. Du teaches that the method for using an IoT communication protocol to distribute updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani and Swann, may include where a Message Queuing Telemetry Transport may be used to communicate software upgrade instructions between a terminal device and a server. Id. at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0058; id. at ¶ 0052 (Terminal device may be a display terminal).
Mani, Swann, and Du are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software updating, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deliver the updates for installation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using an IoT communication protocol to distribute updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani and Swann, with using MQTT, as taught in Du. Du teaches that MQTT is useful for transmitting updates to display terminal and both Mani and Swann teach updating a display terminal such as a tablet device. Du at ¶ 0052; Mani at 0042 & 0069; Swann at ¶ 0029. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using an IoT communication protocol to distribute updates to IoT tablet devices, as taught in Mani and Swann, with using MQTT, as taught in Du, for the purpose of using a known IoT update communication protocol to transmit update communications to IoT devices.}
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
//T.H./ February 21, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199