DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the response filed on February 13, 2026.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claim 1 recites wherein the task window constrains execution of device-level operations on the managed device to time periods that reduce disruption of task execution and power consumption on the managed device Applicant’s disclosure does not describe the device-level operation on the managed device to time periods that reduce power consumptions of the managed device. The same rationale applies to claims 7 and 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed on 2/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 2/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Flemming. Please see the updated rejection below as necessitated by amendments. In addition Prabu teaches that an administrative user configure the manager device in ¶ 0083: “a task sequence to use in managing a device or set of devices is obtained (act 392). The task sequence itself may be passed to controller 122 as a parameter, or alternatively an identifier of (e.g., pointer to) the task sequence may be passed to controller 122 and controller 122 may retrieve it. The particular task 11sequence obtained in act 392 can be identified by, for example, a user such as a system administrator of the automated deployment service 120 of FIG. 2 (e.g., selected by the user from a multiple possible task sequences), or alternatively can be identified by some other component or device or user. The task sequence can be an XML file, or alternatively any other representation of a series of one or more steps. The task sequence can be user-defined. Any user (e.g., a system administrator of the automated deployment service) can optionally be permitted to define task sequences to be carried out by controller 122.” And ¶ 0091: “the process may be started when notification that the task sequence is to be performed for a device is received, or when the device is booted on the network. Alternatively, the notification may also include one or more additional conditions or constraints that are to be satisfied before the steps of the task sequence are to be performed (e.g., controller 122 may be notified to wait for some other event to occur, such as some other task sequence to finish, or wait for a particular time or day to perform the steps of the task sequence).” i.e., tasks availability constraint).
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 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 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabu et al., (US 2004/0267716 A1) hereinafter “Prabu” in view of Jouni Flemming, Configuration and Settings to Snooze Windows 10 Updates, jv16 PowerTools Blog, published on March 30, 2018, hereinafter “Flemming”
Claim 1:
Prabu as shown discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, from a manager device, at least one task availability constraint, wherein the at least one task availability constraint is configured at the manager device by and administrative user (Figures 2 and 6, see also ¶ 0083: “a task sequence to use in managing a device or set of devices is obtained (act 392). The task sequence itself may be passed to controller 122 as a parameter, or alternatively an identifier of (e.g., pointer to) the task sequence may be passed to controller 122 and controller 122 may retrieve it. The particular task 11sequence obtained in act 392 can be identified by, for example, a user such as a system administrator of the automated deployment service 120 of FIG. 2 (e.g., selected by the user from a multiple possible task sequences), or alternatively can be identified by some other component or device or user. The task sequence can be an XML file, or alternatively any other representation of a series of one or more steps. The task sequence can be user-defined. Any user (e.g., a system administrator of the automated deployment service) can optionally be permitted to define task sequences to be carried out by controller 122.” And ¶ 0091: “the process may be started when notification that the task sequence is to be performed for a device is received, or when the device is booted on the network. Alternatively, the notification may also include one or more additional conditions or constraints that are to be satisfied before the steps of the task sequence are to be performed (e.g., controller 122 may be notified to wait for some other event to occur, such as some other task sequence to finish, or wait for a particular time or day to perform the steps of the task sequence).” i.e., tasks availability constraint);
Prabu teaches in Figure 6, ¶ 0084: “the job representation includes one or more element(s) that correspond to the step(s) of the task sequence. The elements of the job representation may have a one to one correspondence to the steps of the task sequence, or alternatively multiple elements may correspond to a single step of the task sequence, or alternatively multiple steps of the task sequence may correspond to a single element of the job representation. The element(s) of the job representation are then carried out or performed in managing the device(s) (act 396).” Prabu is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Flemming in an analogous art of managing devices for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
receiving, from at least one managed device, configured task window settings, wherein the configured task window settings are configured at the at least one managed device by an end user of the at least one managed device and based on the at least one task availability constraint; and (pages 3-8 describe how to configure task windows settings that are configured by an end user of the at least one managed device based on the at least one task availability constraint, note at least the active hours and restart options see also “Microsoft introduced a feature called ‘Snooze’ that makes it possible for users to delay a specific update. You can pause updates for a maximum of 3 days at a time. This allows you to find the most appropriate time to install the update.”);
creating a task window associated with the at least one managed device based on the configured task window settings and the at least one task availability constraint, wherein the task window constrains execution of device-level operations on the managed device to time periods that reduce disruption of task execution and power consumption on the managed device (pages 3-8 describe task windows associated with at least one managed device, note at least the active hours and restart options, which reduce disruption of task execution and power consumption on the managed device and “Microsoft introduced a feature called ‘Snooze’ that makes it possible for users to delay a specific update. You can pause updates for a maximum of 3 days at a time. This allows you to find the most appropriate time to install the update.”);
Both Prabu and Flemming teach managing devices. Prabu teaches in the Abstract: “Task sequences are used to manage devices.” Flemming teaches in page 2 “Windows devices used to be automatically restarted to complete the installation of some changes.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Flemming would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Flemming to the teaching of Prabu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as receiving, from at least one managed device, configured task window settings, wherein the configured task window settings are configured at the at least one managed device by an end user of the at least one managed device and based on the at least one task availability constraint; and creating a task window associated with the at least one managed device based on the configured task window settings and the at least one task availability constraint, wherein the task window constrains execution of device-level operations on the managed device to time periods that reduce disruption of task execution and power consumption on the managed device into similar systems. Further, as noted by Flemming “This is really useful if you want your computer to be safe and also have all the new functions and bug fixes.” (Theron, ¶ 0033).
Claims 7 and 13:
The limitations of claims 7 and 13 (¶ 0134-0135) encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above. The following are the limitations of claim 7 that differ from claim 1.
Claim 7:
Prabu as shown discloses a system, the system comprising:
a memory comprising instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to (Figure 11);
Claims 2, 8 and 14:
Prabu as shown discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: receiving, from the manager device, a task command to deploy at least one object to the at least one managed device during the task window; and (¶ 0083: “The task sequence itself may be passed to controller 122 as a parameter, or alternatively an identifier of (e.g., pointer to) the task sequence may be passed to controller 122 and controller 122 may retrieve it. The particular task 11sequence obtained in act 392 can be identified by, for example, a user such as a system administrator of the automated deployment service 120 of FIG. 2 (e.g., selected by the user from a multiple possible task sequences), or alternatively can be identified by some other component or device or user. The task sequence can be an XML file, or alternatively any other representation of a series of one or more steps. The task sequence can be user-defined. Any user (e.g., a system administrator of the automated deployment service) can optionally be permitted to define task sequences to be carried out by controller 122.” See also figure 10);
transmitting, based on the task command, the at least one object to the at least one managed device during the task window (¶ 0062: “When the deployment agent runs, it announces itself to auto- discovery component 214, and optionally establishes secure communication with controller service 212 (act 356). Secure communication between controller service 212 and the target device can be achieved in any of a variety of manners (e.g., using cryptography and symmetric keys and/or public/private key pairs). Establishing secure communication allows, for example, the target device to ensure that commands it receives are from the controller 202 (which the target device inherently trusts), and not from some rogue or mischievous device on the network.”);
Claims 5, 11 and 17:
Prabu as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the configured task window settings comprise a time period and at least one device state of the at least one managed device (¶ 0091: “the process may be started when notification that the task sequence is to be performed for a device is received, or when the device is booted on the network. Alternatively, the notification may also include one or more additional conditions or constraints that are to be satisfied before the steps of the task sequence are to be performed (e.g., controller 122 may be notified to wait for some other event to occur, such as some other task sequence to finish, or wait for a particular time or day to perform the steps of the task sequence).”);
Claims 6, 12 and 18:
Prabu as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one device state comprises a battery power state, an application state, and a connection state (page 10, Table IV, note the property: State “State of the connection to the target device”, see also pages 36-37 which describes the state of the device);
Claims 3-4, 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabu et al., (US 2004/0267716 A1) hereinafter “Prabu” and Jouni Flemming, Configuration and Settings to Snooze Windows 10 Updates, jv16 PowerTools Blog, published on March 30, 2018, hereinafter “Flemming” as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of John Theron (US 2002/0178387 A1) hereinafter “Theron”.
Claims 3, 9 and 15:
Prabu teaches in ¶ 0140: “A monitor 642 or other type of display device can also be connected to the system bus 608 via an interface, such as a video adapter 644.” Prabu also teaches in ¶ 0081: “For example, task sequences can be used to install applications other than operating systems on computing devices (e.g., educational or recreational applications, utility applications, word processing applications, database applications, spreadsheet applications, hot fixes or updates to applications or operating systems, and so forth), perform maintenance on computing devices, retrieve and log information from computing devices, and so forth.” And ¶ 0093: “the failure may be logged so that a system administrator can see the failure at a later time when reviewing the log, or an alert may be sent to the system administrator (e.g., an electronic mail (email) message, a text message to a cellular phone or pager, an automated voice telephone call, and so forth).” Prabu in view of Flemming is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Theron in an analogous art of managing devices for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
further comprising: displaying, on the manager device, a report based on the configured task window settings associated with the at least one managed device (Figures 8-9, see also ¶ 0007: “A web server provides an interface through which an administrative user can access reports relating to power use by the devices and through which power use settings of the devices can be configured. Reports can include statistical information relating to, for example, hours per day devices spend in various states, such as on, idle, sleep, or monitor standby. Based upon reports and/or specified policies, the server configures power settings of the devices through the agents.”);
Both Prabu and Theron teach managing devices. Prabu teaches in the Abstract: “Task sequences are used to manage devices.” Theron teaches in the Abstract: “A management and monitoring server monitors and manages power use and power utilization settings of multiple network information devices, such as computers, printers, and network storage devices. Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Theron would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Theron to the teaching of Prabu in view of Flemming would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as displaying, on the manager device, a report based on the configured task window settings associated with the at least one managed device into similar systems. Further, as noted by Theron “The system 100 preferably also generates and delivers summary and exception reports that highlight devices wasting energy and recommends and implements energy saving actions.” (Theron, ¶ 0033).
Claims 4, 10 and 16:
Prabu teaches in ¶ 0140: “A monitor 642 or other type of display device can also be connected to the system bus 608 via an interface, such as a video adapter 644.” Prabu also teaches in ¶ 0081: “For example, task sequences can be used to install applications other than operating systems on computing devices (e.g., educational or recreational applications, utility applications, word processing applications, database applications, spreadsheet applications, hot fixes or updates to applications or operating systems, and so forth), perform maintenance on computing devices, retrieve and log information from computing devices, and so forth.” And ¶ 0093: “the failure may be logged so that a system administrator can see the failure at a later time when reviewing the log, or an alert may be sent to the system administrator (e.g., an electronic mail (email) message, a text message to a cellular phone or pager, an automated voice telephone call, and so forth).” Prabu in view of Flemming is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Theron in an analogous art of managing devices for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
further comprising: displaying, on the manager device, the configured task window settings associated with the at least one managed device (Figures 12-13, see also ¶ 0007: “A web server provides an interface through which an administrative user can access reports relating to power use by the devices and through which power use settings of the devices can be configured. Reports can include statistical information relating to, for example, hours per day devices spend in various states, such as on, idle, sleep, or monitor standby. Based upon reports and/or specified policies, the server configures power settings of the devices through the agents.” And ¶ 0106: “a detailed report can be accessed for a particular machine. FIG. 13 illustrates a web page showing an example detailed report.”);
Both Prabu and Theron teach managing devices. Prabu teaches in the Abstract: “Task sequences are used to manage devices.” Theron teaches in the Abstract: “A management and monitoring server monitors and manages power use and power utilization settings of multiple network information devices, such as computers, printers, and network storage devices. Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Theron would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Theron to the teaching of Prabu in view of Flemming would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as displaying, on the manager device, the configured task window settings associated with the at least one managed device into similar systems. Further, as noted by Theron “The system 100 preferably also generates and delivers summary and exception reports that highlight devices wasting energy and recommends and implements energy saving actions.” (Theron, ¶ 0033).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. 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. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623