DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a request for continued examination dated 13 March 2026 in response to the 14 January 2026 final rejection (the “Previous Action”).
With the communication, Applicant amends claims 1, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25-26, 28, 30 and 32-34.
Claim 1, 9-10, 15, 17, 19-26 and 28-34 are pending. Claims 1, 15 and 25 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 March 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended in a fashion that avoids unsupported elements while maintaining patentable distinctions over the prior art of record. (Remarks, p. 9 par. 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant has deleted the features that distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art of record. The claims are not patentable for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant also appears to suggest that that system 3300 of Figure 7 is the “software loading service system” of the claims. (Remarks, p. 12 par. 3).
Examiner respectfully points out that the description of figure 7 only refers to a “system”, not the “software loading service system”. That term appears nowhere in the originally filed specification.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the terms “software loading service system.”
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.
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:
The “…software loading service system implementing a software loading service…” in claim 1;
The “…software loading service system controls an installation of software…” in claim 1;
The “…software loading service system implementing a software loading service…” in claim 15;
The “…software loading service system controls an installation of software…” in claim 15;
The “…software loading service system implementing a software loading service…” in claim 25;
The “…software loading service system controls an installation of software…” in claim 25;
The “…software loading service system is configured to receive…the information of the payload” in claim 26;
The “…software loading service system is configured to…identify a software version…” in claim 26;
The “…software loading service system is configured to…send, to the first device, the identified software version” in claim 26;
The “…software loading service system is configured to receive…the information of the payload…” in claim 32;
The “…software loading service system is configured to prevent…installation…” in claim 32;
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 Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn unless reproduced herein below.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10, 15, 17, 19-26 and 28-34 are 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 to claim 1, the limitations of this claim noted above invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as noted. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of the limitation and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Furthermore, for computer-implemented means plus function limitations, the disclosed structure must include an algorithm for performing the function claimed. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). And here, the specification does not describe the structure of any “software loading service system” at all, let alone any algorithm for performing the functions claimed.
Since the specification lacks sufficient corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite and an equivalent is any element that performs the specified function. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2181(II)(B) and 2185.
As to claims 9-10 and 23-24, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 15, the claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 17 and 19-22 the claims are dependent on claim 15 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 25, the claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 26 and 28-34 the claims are dependent on claim 25 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claims 26 and 32, the claims are indefinite for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Namely, they also invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as noted while the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of the limitation and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
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, 9-10, 15, 17, 19-26 and 28-34 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 to claims 1, 9-10, 15, 17, 19-26 and 28-34, the claims include means-plus function limitations lacking sufficient corresponding structure as noted above. Such limitations also lack written description. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.03(VI).
Further as to claim 1, p. 3 ll. 3-5 of the claim refers to:
“…preventing, with the customer server computer…the first device from accessing a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium associated with the organization…”
There does not appear to be sufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features. Applicant points to paragraphs [0038] and [0014] as support but those paragraphs do not refer to preventing access to any non-transitory medium. They at best describe preventing access to “data resources” but that is not the same as what is claimed. Furthermore, none of those paragraphs refer to preventing “with the customer server computer”
As to claims 9-10 and 23-24, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 15, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 17 and 19-22 the claims are dependent on claim 15 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 25, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 26 and 28-34 the claims are dependent on claim 25 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claim 33, the claim recites that:
…the second device is unable to directly communicate with the software loading service system or first device.
There does not appear to be sufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features. Applicant points to paragraphs [0013], [0019-0021], [0034], [0038] and [0062] as support but those paragraphs do not describe what is claimed. Paragraph [0036] actually comes the closest but that paragraph only discloses that the customer that manages the customer site “may be willing to accept incoming data transmitted from the administrator” but “may not allow outgoing data to be transmitted to the administrator.” They do not describe what is claimed. Nor does any other portion of the originally filed specification.
Further as to claim 34, the claim recites that:
…wherein the software administrator manages the administrative device, and wherein the device user manages the first device.
There does not appear to be sufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features. Applicant has previously pointed to paragraphs [0013], [0019-0021], [0034], [0038] and [0062] as support but those paragraphs do not describe what is claimed. They do not describe a software administrator managing an administrative device or any user managing a first device. Nor does any other portion of the originally filed specification.
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.
Claims 1, 15, 17, 25-26 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broch et al. (US 2012/0131685) (art of record – hereinafter Broch) in view of Delacourt et al. (US 2016/0132805) (art of record – hereinafter Delacourt) in view of Cohen et al. (US 8,239,918) (art of record – hereinafter Cohen) in view of Melchione et al. (US 2004/0006586) (art of record – hereinafter Melchione) in view of Winston et al. (US 2014/0316990) (art of record – hereinafter Winston) and in view of Belchee et al. (US 2013/0054702) (art of record – hereinafter Belchee).
As to claim 1, Broch discloses: a method comprising:
a customer server computer associated with an organization, (e.g., Broch, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0020]: device management system 102 may be included within an enterprise [organization] network)
wherein the customer server computer is separated, by a firewall, from the software loading service system [and] the first device (e.g., Broch, Fig. 1 and associate text discloses [see figure], the enterprise network [customer site] and management system 102 are separated from devices 104 [target devices] and the external app store [software loading service system] by firewall 120)
preventing, with the customer server computer, the first device from accessing a non- transitory machine-readable storage medium associated with the organization in response to a determination that (a) a software version installed on the first device is outside the range of software versions or (b) at least one of the conditions has been violated (e.g., Broch, par. [0081]: mobile device management system 102 may determine and set one or more bits or other parameter values in a security table that indicates whether a mobile device 104 [first device] has a blacklisted application, whether a mobile device lacks a required application as well as other factors discussed above. One or more network application services can query this security state table when making admission control decisions when a mobile device 104 attempts to access a given service. Blocking access represents one of the possible actions that could be triggered in connection with analyzing the posture-based profile. Other examples include locking the mobile device, wiping the mobile device, and transmitting user notifications; par. [0060]: a version number for this application; par. [0040]: services “(e.g., email or access to an enterprise database)” [email and a database necessarily comprising a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium])
Broch does not explicitly disclose: receiving, at a customer server computer from a software loading service system implementing a software loading service, release information regarding a plurality of software versions for a first device, wherein the software loading service system controls an installation of software on the first device; sending, from the customer server computer to a second device of a software administrator, the release information to cause creation, at the second device, of a profile, wherein determination of software versions made available by the software loading service in the release information is made independently of input from the software administrator, wherein the customer server computer is separated, by a firewall, from the second device; receiving, at the customer server computer from the second device, the profile; creating, with the customer server computer, a payload based on the profile, wherein the payload comprises information specifying (a) a range of software versions of the plurality of software versions that is allowed on the first device and (b) one or more conditions under which the software versions of the range of software versions are to be installed on the first device, and wherein the range of software versions comprise different versions of a particular unit of software; sending, from the customer server computer to the first device, the payload, wherein the payload, when received by the first device, causes the first device to act as a pass-through for the information of the payload by sending the information of the payload to the software loading service.
However, in an analogous art, Delacourt discloses:
receiving, at a customer server computer from a software loading service system implementing a software loading service, release information regarding a plurality of software versions for a first device, (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0257]: a server [customer server computer] implements techniques through an enterprise catalog service as described herein; Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0085]: products may be discovered and ingested by the enterprise catalog service through [from, see figure] product discovery service 110 [software loading service]; par. [0081]: products and product versions stored in the catalog service; par. [0024]: In this way, administrators may be able to find products from external sources [also software loading services]; par. [0033]: these products may include applications)
sending, from the customer server computer to a second device of a software administrator, the release information (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0257]: a server implements techniques through an enterprise catalog service as described herein; Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0084] discloses an IT administrator 102 may interact with the enterprise catalog services platform 108 [server] through a service provide management console 106; par. [0219] discloses the IT administrator may access the service provider console through a browser application “(e.g., as a web page)” [the browser or machine on which it runs being a second device]; par. [0229]: Figs. 11A-11B illustrate examples of the information presented through a service provider console. Fig. 11A including options for managing the constraints associated with particular individual software products [the products shown being the release information, sent from the server to console machine because they are displayed there]) to cause creation, at the second device, of a profile, (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0229]: Fig. 11A indicating options for managing the constraints associated with particular individual software products; par. [0165] discloses constraints may indicate which of the applications are required to be installed by end users [i.e., on their devices] and which are optional; par. [0135]: the IT administrator may apply various constraints on the use of selected desktop applications and/or server products; par. [0214]: when a constraint is added to product, a reference to the constraint object may be added to the object representing the product [information describing the products and associated constraints being a profile])
receiving, at the customer server computer, from the second device, the profile; (Delacourt, par. [0120]: the enterprise catalog service may be configured to store metadata elements, which include any constraints that are associated with a product [i.e., the profile created by the administrator at a second device noted above, meaning the enterprise catalog service receives that information])
where the profile comprises information specifying (b) one or more conditions under which the software versions are to be installed on the first device, (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0135]: constraints applied the IT administrator may be categorized as being one of four types: environmental constraints “(which may restrict the region [location] in which a product can be provisioned)”; par. [0175] discloses the IT administrator has provisioned the application “(e.g., by installing a virtualized application package on a virtual desktop)”; par. [0238]: each version of a software product can have constraints; par. [0214]: when a constraint is added to product, a reference to the constraint object may be added to the object representing the product [information describing the products and associated constraints being a profile]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the customer server computer, loading service system implementing a loading service, first device and administration of software on the first device taught by Broch such that the server computer receives release information regarding a plurality of software versions for the first device from the loading service, sends the release information to a second device to cause creation, at the administrative device, of a profile and receiving, at the customer server computer, from the second device, the profile, as taught by Delacourt, as Delacourt would provide the advantage of a means for an administrator remote from the server to discover software from external sources and enforce compliance with organizational policies with respect to that software on the target devices. (See Delacourt, par. [0110], par. [0024], par. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the administrator management of software on target devices taught by Broch such that the administrator uses a device to creates a profile specifying one or more conditions under which software versions are to be installed on target devices, as taught by Delacourt, as Delacourt would provide the advantage of a means for a remote administrator to restrict installation of the software to certain contexts. (See Delacourt, pars. [0110], [0135], [0213]).
Further, in an analogous art, Cohen discloses
wherein the software loading service system controls an installation of software on the first device; (e.g., Cohen col. 11 l. 57-64: the request may be a request to install a selected application. In the illustrated example, the application or applications requested by the user device 404 have been restricted by the policy sent at 410. The application marketplace server 406 [software loading service] therefore sends denial information to the user device 404 [first device]).
creating, with the customer server computer, a payload based on the profile, wherein the payload comprises the profile (e.g., Cohen, Fig. 1 and associated text, col. 12 ll. 54-65: the administrator server 502 may be the administrator server 102, the user device 504 may be the user device 104. At 510, the administrator server 502 [customer server computer] sends a policy “A” [profile] to the user device; col. 4 ll. 5-7: administrator server 102 and a user device 104 are connected by a network 130; col. 4 ll. 11-16: the network 130 includes a wired or wireless network, e.g., the Internet, a cellular data network [sending the policy (profile) over a network necessarily includes creating a payload comprising the profile, at least because data is sent through such network using packets having payloads that comprise the data being delivered to its destination. See, e.g., “Packet Definition, of record])
sending, from the customer server to the first device, the payload, (see immediately above) wherein the payload, when received by the first device, causes the first device to act as a pass-through for the information of the payload by sending the information of the payload to the software loading service; (e.g., Cohen, col. 12 ll. 54-65: at 510, the administrator server 502 sends a policy “A” [in the form of a payload since it is transmitted over network 130, see immediately above] to the user device 504; Fig. 5 and associated text, col. 13 ll. 15-17: at 514, the user device sends a policy request to the application marketplace server 506. The request includes the policy “A” [so information of the received payload, i.e., the policy, passes through the user device to the marketplace server since it was first received from server 502]; col. 15 ll. 45-50: expansion memory 674 may include instructions to carry out or supplement the processes described above [i.e., the user device is instructed to perform the operations it performs]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the software loading service of Broch/Delacourt such that it controls the installation of software on the target device, as taught by Cohen, as Cohen would provide the advantage of a means for a user to be spared the effort of downloading restricted applications from a software loading service. (See Cohen, col. 4 l. 64 – col. 5 l. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the customer server, target device and software loading service of Broch/Delacourt such that customer server computer creates a payload comprising a profile based on the profile, sends it to a first device and wherein the payload, when received by the first device, causes the first device to act as a pass-through for the information of the payload by sending the information of the payload to the software loading service, as taught by Cohen, as Cohen would provide the advantages of a means for an administrator to control application access at both the target device and loading service (see Cohen, col. 12 l. 63 – col. 13 l. 15) and a means of synchronizing a policy directly sent to the device with policy information already on loading service. (See Cohen, col. 13 ll. 15-20).
Further still, in an analogous art, Melchione discloses:
wherein the customer server computer is separated, by a firewall, from the second device; (e.g., Melchione, par. [0116]: nodes on the customer’s network; [ar. [0072]: any of the nodes can include web server functionality; par. [0082]: nodes within the network “(e.g., behind the firewall)”; par. [0089]: thus, a network can be administered via the Internet, even by an administrator employing a device [second device] outside the firewall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the administrator device and customer site taught by Broch such that the customer server is separated from second device by a firewall, as taught by Melchione, as Melchione would provide the advantage of a means of administrating the site from the internet. (See Melchione, par. [0089]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Winston discloses:
wherein determination of software versions made available by the software loading service in the release information is made independently of input from the software administrator, (e.g., Winston, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0036] discloses store customization module [on the server device 300, see figure] may generate an interface 391 [release information, or comprising such information], which may include all applications [version(s)] available for installation on client devices; par. [0028] discloses server computing device 300 [software loading service] may be managed by a cloud service provider or other third party separate from the enterprise network to which administrator device 350 and client computing device 375 belong [so the customization module on that server generates the interface of versions independently of administrator input, see par, [0025] of the specification]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the receiving of release information taught by Broch/Delacourt such that the determination of versions made available by the software loading service in the release information is made independently of input from the software administrator, as taught by Winston, as Winston would provide the advantage of a means of controlling applications made available and released via a 3rd party (see Winston, par. [0047]) as suggested by Delacourt above.
Further still, in an analogous art, Belchee discloses:
the profile comprises information specifying (a) a range of software versions of the plurality of software versions that is allowed on the first device (e.g., Belchee, Fig. 7 and associated text, par. [0056] discloses an example listing [profile] of one or more approved applications. A listing of approved applications 700 may include the names and/or version numbers of one or more applications that have been approved for use on one or more mobile computing devices. For some applications, only specific version numbers of the application might be approved for use, while for other applications, a range of versions numbers “(e.g., ‘version 2.4 and below’)” of the application might be approved) the software versions of the range of software versions (see immediately above), and wherein the range of software versions comprise different versions of a particular unit of software; (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the profile specified in a payload that includes conditions under which software versions are allowed on target devices taught by Broch/Delacourt/Cohen to include a range of versions and versions comprising different versions of a particular unit of software, as taught by Belchee, as Belchee would provide the advantage of a means of approving multiple version numbers of a particular application for use on mobile devices. (See Belchee, par. [0056]). Referring to the version numbers by range would also avoid the need to specify each version number in the range individually in the profile.
As to claim 15, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Further limitations, disclosed by Broch, include:
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that upon execution cause (e.g., Broch, par. [0202]) a server of a customer site to: (see rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 17, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above) and creation of the payload (see also rejection of claim 15 above) but Broch does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the server to receive from the second device, a plurality of additional profiles for the first device; wherein the creation of a payload comprises a reconciliation procedure in which the profile is reconciled with the plurality of additional profiles.
However, in an analogous art, Delacourt discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the server to receive from the second device, a plurality of additional profiles for the first device; (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0137]: different sets of constraints have been selected) and a reconciliation procedure in which the profile is reconciled with the plurality of additional profiles (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0137]: the most restrictive set of constraints may be applied when different sets of constraints have been selected for a given software product).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer server computer of Broch/Cohen to include receiving a plurality of additional profiles for the target device from the administrative device and modify the creation of a payload taught by Boch/Cohen to include performing a reconciliation procedure in which the profile is reconciled with the plurality of additional profiles, as taught by Delacourt, as Delacourt would provide the advantage of a means of resolving conflicts between multiple selected profiles. (See Delacourt, par. [0137]).
As to claim 25, it is a system claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 26, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the system of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above) Broch further disclose a/the software version (e.g., Broch, par. [0060]: interface 800 allows network administrators to add applications to be managed by device management system 102. The following summarizes the various input fields of new application interface: par. [0062]: a version number of this application) but Broch/Delacourt does not explicitly disclose further comprising the software loading service system, wherein the software loading service system is configured to: receive, from the first device, the information of the payload; identify a software version that may be installed on the first device based on the information of the payload; and send, to the first device, the identified software version.
However, in an analogous art, Cohen discloses:
further comprising the software loading service system (e.g., Cohen, Fig. 1 and associated text discloses [see figure] application marketplace server 103) wherein the software loading service system is configured to:
receive, from the first device, the information of the payload (e.g., Cohen, col. 13 ll. 15-17: at 514, the user device sends a policy request to the application marketplace server 506. The request includes the policy “A” [so information of the received payload, see rejection of claim 25 above])
identify a software that may be installed on the first device based on the information; (e.g., Cohen, col. 5 ll. 54-56: the user seeks to download and install an application [i.e., an application version, as an application is necessarily a version] from the application marketplace 150; col. 2 ll. 3-7: when a user seeks to install an application, a security application or module associated with the application marketplace determines whether the policy allows or disallows such access before allowing the application to be downloaded, or installed) and
send, to the first device, the identified software (see immediately above, the application is sent to the target device by the marketplace [software loading service] because it is downloaded from there).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the application version and software loading service of Broch/Delacourt such that the service identifies a software that may be installed on the target device based on information and sends the identified software to the target device, as taught by Cohen, as Cohen would provide the advantage of a means for a user to be spared the effort of downloading restricted applications from a software loading service. (See Cohen, col. 4 l. 64 – col. 5 l. 5).
As to claim 30, it is a system claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 17. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 31, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the system of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30 above) but Broch does not explicitly disclose wherein the reconciliation procedure is based on a ranking of the profile and the plurality of additional profiles.
However, in an analogous art, Delacourt discloses:
wherein the reconciliation procedure is based on a ranking of the profile and the plurality of additional profiles (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0137]: the most restrictive set of constraints [profile] may be applied when different sets of constraints [profiles] have been selected for user or product [determining which set of constraints is the most restrictive being ranking them, the most restrictive being the highest ranked]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Broch such that the server performs a reconciliation procedure based on a ranking of the profile and the plurality of additional profiles, as taught by Delacourt, as Delacourt would provide the advantage of a means of resolving conflicts between selected profiles. (See Delacourt, par. [0137]).
As to claim 32, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the system of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above) Broch further discloses further comprising the software loading service system (see rejection of claim 1 above) but Broch does not explicitly disclose wherein the software loading service system is configured to receive, from the first device, the information of the payload; and prevent, based on the information of the payload, installation of a specified software version on the first device. However, in an analogous art, Cohen discloses:
wherein the software loading service system is configured to:
receive, from the first device, the information of the payload; (e.g., Cohen, col. 13 ll. 15-17: at 514, the user device sends a policy request to the application marketplace server 506 [software loading service system]. The request includes the policy “A” [so information of the received payload, see rejection of claim 25 above]) and
prevent, based on the information of the payload, installation of a specified version on the first device (e.g., Cohen col. 11 l. 57-64: the request may be a request to install a selected application. In the illustrated example, the application or applications requested by the user device 404 have been restricted by the policy sent at 410. The application marketplace server 406 [software loading service system] therefore sends denial information to the user device 404 [first device]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software loading service system of Broch such that the software loading service system is configured to receive, from the first device, the information of the payload; and prevent, based on the information of the payload, installation of a specified version on the first device, as taught by Cohen, as Cohen would provide the advantage of a means for a user to be spared the effort of downloading restricted applications from a software loading service. (See Cohen, col. 4 l. 64 – col. 5 l. 5).
As to claim 33, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the system of claim 32 (see rejection of claim 32 above) but Broch does not explicitly disclose wherein the second device is unable to directly communicate with the software loading service system or the first device.
However, in an analogous art, Melchione discloses:
wherein the second device is unable to directly communicate with the software loading service system or the first device (e.g., Melchione, Fig. 18 and associated text, par. [0172]: an administrator can use a computer 1850 [second device]; par. [0173]: in the arrangement, the node 1822 [first device] does not have access to network 140 [and thus cannot directly communicate with computer 1850, see figure]. For example, there may be a firewall in place, or connectivity may otherwise be prohibited or impossible; par. [0080]: typical network connections include security measure that inhibit various functionality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second device and first device of Broch/DElacourt, such that the second device is unable to directly communicate with the first device, as taught by Melchione, as Melchione would provide a means of increasing security of the system. (See Melchione, par. [0080]).
As to claim 34, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the system of claim 33 (see rejection of claim 33 above) Broch further discloses:
wherein the organization manages the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and the customer server computer, (e.g., Broch, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0020]: device management system 102 may be included within an enterprise network [i.e., it is managed by that organization]; par. [0040]: enterprise related services, (e.g., email or access to an enterprise database) [again, the enterprise database is managed by the enterprise because it is part of it]; par. [0080]: enterprise network services that are hosted by an enterprise) wherein a software management entity manages the software loading service system, (e.g., Broch, par. [0078]: a consumer application store external to the enterprise “(e.g., Apple’s App Store or Google’s Android Market)” [Apple or Google being a software management entity]) wherein the software administrator manages the second device, and wherein a device user manages the first device (e.g., Broch, par. [0040]: an employee may indicate he or she desires to use the personally owned device 104 ).
Broch does not explicitly disclose wherein the software administrator manages the second device.
However, in an analogous art, Delacourt discloses:
wherein the software administrator manages the second device (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0219]: the IT administrator may access the service provider console through a browser application “(e.g., as a web page)” [since the administrator is using a device to access the console, he or she is managing that device]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Broch to include a software administrator managing the second device, as taught by Delacourt, as Delacourt would provide the advantage of a means for the administrator to access the customer server computer. (See Delacourt, par. [0219]).
Claim 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broch (US 2012/0131685) in view of Delacourt (US 2016/0132805) in view of Cohen (US 8,239,918) in view of Melchione (US 2004/0006586) in view of Winston (US 2014/0316990) in view of Belchee (US 2013/0054702) in further view of Giannini et al. (US 2006/0168574) (art of record – hereinafter Giannini).
As to claim 9, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses conditions specified in information of the payload (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the conditions included in the payload further comprise a memory available condition that controls installation of a software version based on an amount of memory available on the first device.
However, in an analogous art, Giannini discloses:
wherein the conditions comprise a memory available condition that controls installation of a software version based on an amount of memory available on the first device (e.g., Giannini, par. [0040] discloses a targeting expression can be configured for each version being upgraded [upgrade being installation of a software version]. The targeting expression can be based on one or more of the parameters in Table 3; par. [0037] and Table 3 discloses available hard disk space and/or other available non-volatile memory space, of user system, Available RAM or working memory on user system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the conditions of the payload of Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee by incorporating a condition that controls installation of a software version based on available memory on the target device, as taught by Giannini, as Giannini would provide the advantage of means of only installing the software on the user system if the user system has sufficient available memory. (See Giannini, Table 3 and pars. [0040-0041]).
As to claim 19, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 10, 20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broch (US 2012/0131685) in view of Delacourt (US 2016/0132805) in view of Cohen (US 8,239,918) in view of Melchione (US 2004/0006586) in view of Winston (US 2014/0316990) in view of Belchee (US 2013/0054702) in further view of Bridgeham et al. (US 2010/0011411) (art of record – hereinafter Bridgeham).
As to claim 10, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the range of software versions specifies a minimum release number of the particular unit of software and a maximum release number of the particular unit of software.
However, in an analogous art, Bridgeham discloses:
wherein including the range of software versions specifies a minimum release number of the particular unit of software and a maximum release number of the particular unit of software (e.g., Bridgeham, Fig. 3 and associated text, par. [0031] discloses sample policy document 300; par. [0032] discloses the “version” attribute specifies allowable versions. In this example, PE engine will load any assets named “util1.jar” which have a version number [release number] that falls in the range of 1.0 [minimum release number] through 2.0 [maximum release number] “(see reference number 323)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the range of Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee to include a minimum and maximum release number, as taught by Bridgham, as Bridgeham would provide the advantage of specifying a closed range of allowable versions. (See Bridgeham, par. [0032]). Belchee also suggests the combination because Belchee discloses ranges of version numbers in general, and Bridgeham discloses an example of such a range.
As to claim 20, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 29, it is a system claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broch (US 2012/0131685) in view of Delacourt (US 2016/0132805) in view of Cohen (US 8,239,918) in view of Melchione (US 2004/0006586) in view of Winston (US 2014/0316990) in view of Belchee (US 2013/0054702) in further view of O’Shaughnessy (US 2009/0280795) (art of record – hereinafter O’Shaughnessy).
As to claim 21, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above) and further discloses conditions of the payload specified in the information of the payload (see rejection of claim 15 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the conditions of the payload comprise a roaming condition that controls installation of a software version based on a roaming status of the first device.
However, in an analogous art, O’Shaughnessy discloses:
wherein the conditions comprise a roaming condition that controls installation of a software version based on a roaming status of the first device (e.g., O’Shaughnessy, par. [0044-0049] discloses once the system administrator has registered an upgraded version of an application 112, they must specify how the upgrade [installation] should take place using a combination of upgrade options, the options include but are not limited to: enable/disable a subset or all of the device and user per-requisites for application deployment [installation] for instance; not when roaming or on ‘home’ network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the payload conditions of Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee, to include a condition that controls installation of a software version based on a roaming status of the target device, as taught by O’Shaughnessy, as O’Shaughnessy would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring installation while the device is on a home network. (See O’Shaughnessy, par. [0049]).
As to claim 22, Broch/Delacourt/Cohen/Melchione/Winston/Belchee/O’Shaughnessy disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above) and further discloses information of the payload that is a profile (see rejection of claim 15 above), but Broch does not explicitly disclose wherein the conditions of the payload further comprise a time condition or a location condition.
However, in an analogous art, Delacourt discloses
wherein the conditions specified in the profile further comprise a time condition or a location condition (e.g., Delacourt, par. [0135]: constraints [a profile] applied by the IT administrator may be categorized as being one of four types: environmental constraints “(which may restrict the region [location] in which a product can be provisioned)”; par. [0175] discloses the IT administrator has provisioned the application “(e.g., by installing a virtualized application package on a virtual desktop)”; par. [0238]: each version of a software product can have constraints) but does not explicitly disclose conditions of the payload.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile information in a payload taught by Broch/Cohen to include conditions comprising a location condition on when the application can be installed, as taught by Delacourt, as Delacourt would provide the advantage of a means of restricting installation of the software to a specific region. (See Delancourt, par. [0135]).
As to claim 23, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 21. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 24, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 22. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broch (US 2012/0131685) in view of Delacourt (US 2016/0132805) in view of Cohen (US 8,239,918) in view of Melchione (US 2004/0006586) in view of Winston (US 2014/0316990) in view of Belchee (US 2013/0054702) in further view of in further view of O’Shaughnessy (US 2009/0280795) and Giannini (US 2006/0168574).
As to claim 28, it is a system claim combining the limitations of claims 9, 21 and 22. Accordingly it is rejected for the same reasons set forth herein with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (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 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights