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 .
This is in response to Applicants amendment of 06/09/26. Claims 1 –3, and 5 – 21 has been amended and is now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, and 5 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. US-20200196213-A1 in view of Hung, US 20190239037 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, Cheng discloses a method for remotely transferring a software package to a group of devices, the method comprising:
transferring the software package to a first device [0070, see assigning devices to users and Groups and also Deployment]. Cheng doesn’t expressly disclose wherein after the transferring of the software package to the first device, identifying, by the first device, remaining devices in the group; after the identifying, contacting, by the first device, the remaining devices; and after the contacting, transferring the software package from the first device to the remaining devices.
However, Hung in an analogous art and similar configuration discloses in 0073 – 0074 wherein a group sharing module having local access with a local stored copy of the shared data and is able to share the data/messages to the other devices in the group using a data updater module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the invention to combine Cheng and Hung, because it would enable transferring data between locally stored copies i.e. peer to peer versus connecting to an intermediate server as disclosed by Hung in 0071.
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes, before the transferring of the software package to the first device determining a need for software update or modification of one or more devices in the group [0012, shows deploying and software update].
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes, before the transferring of the software package to the first device, detecting the first device [0009, see mobile devices].
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the method of claim 1, wherein the software package is transferred from a cloud to the first device [0112, shows utilizing servers, note cloud is just a collection of servers].
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 5, wherein the method further includes, before the transferring of the software package to the first device transferring the software package to the cloud [0112].
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 5, wherein the method further includes, before the transferring of the software package to the first device scheduling a transfer of the software package from the cloud to the group [See claim 20 from prior art, shows specific time of events and priority regarding deployment to devices].
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the software package is transferred in one or more segments to the first device [0112, see deploy and devices also see updating et seq.as in refer to other areas of prior art for that teaching].
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, wherein the method further includes, before the transferring of the software package to the first device initiating communication with the first device at a predetermined time [See claim 20 from prior art, shows specific time of events and priority regarding deployment to devices].
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9, wherein the predetermined time is determined by an administrator of the group [0112, discloses administrator and scheduling and performing deployment].
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes, before transferring the software package to the first device pinging a plurality of devices of the group [See claim 20 from prior art, shows pinging].
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11, wherein the first device is a device of the group that first responds to the ping [See claim 20 from prior art, shows pinging].
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 1, wherein the group includes about devices and is a first group of a fleet of devices [0070, see users and groups].
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 14, wherein the detecting of the first device of the group includes pinging a plurality of devices of the group, the first device being a device of the group that first responds to the ping [See claim 20 from prior art shows pinging].
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 14, wherein the method further includes scheduling the transfer of the software package to the first device [0070 and also refer to claim 20].
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 14, wherein the detecting of the first device of the group includes pinging a plurality of devices of the group, the first device being a device of the group that first responds to the ping [See claim 20 from prior art, shows pinging].
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 18, wherein the method further includes scheduling the transfer of the software package to the first device [0070 and also refer to claim 20].
Regarding claim 21 (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the remaining devices of the group of devices are of the same type as the first device [0076].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 3, and 5 – 20 have been considered
but they are not persuasive. Applicants plain language of claims calls for just “…transferring the software package to a first device…, contacting, by the first device…, transferring the software package from the first device to the remaining devices…”. So essentially the metes and bounds of this claims pertains to simply transferring software between one device to other device. This is taught in both prior art. Hung in 0076 shows sending data between multiple mobile devices. While Applicant argues that prior art utilizes peer to peer communication to solve the issue, whereas a benefit of the claimed invention is the elimination of extra servers or modules. Nothing in claims precludes, excludes or includes this definition as a distinction and simply calls for transferring files. Which is a basic functionality and is old and well known.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only [0060 – 0080].
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights