Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 3/12/26.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-22 are pending. Claims 9 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are newly added.
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, 10-11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (EP 4498234 A1) hereinafter Sebastian in view of OH et al. (US 20120060152 A1) hereinafter OH in further view of Zaina et al. (US 11556330 B2) hereinafter Zaina.
Regarding Claim 1, Sebastian discloses:
A system comprising: one or more distributed computer nodes connected using a network, each node of the one or more distributed computer nodes consisting of a clock synchronized with a network time management server; (Sebastian Page 6, Paragraph 2 and 3 teaches all machines clock synchronized using PTP – Precision Time Protocol)
a data center orchestrator connected to the one or more distributed computer nodes over the network; at least one processor; (Sebastian Page 8, Paragraph 6 discloses a central instance that distributes to each machine the update/time, acting as a data center orchestrator)
and memory coupled to the data center orchestrator, the memory consisting of computer executable instructions that, when executed by the data center orchestrator, (Sebastian Figure 1)
perform operations comprising: preparing a firmware payload with an updated firmware (Sebastian page 4, step 1.a wherein the updated software as firmware payload is distributed to entities) and an activation time (Sebastian Page 4, Paragraph 5 discloses after completion, individual activation times for system-wide activation are available after completion, demonstrating the distribution of activation time to the entities);
transferring the firmware payload to the one or more distributed computer nodes to perform operations comprising: (Sebastian Page 8, Paragraph 1 and Page 8, Paragraph 6 discloses transferring the update and the exact activation time to each machine)
updating the firmware at each node of the one or more distributed nodes; (Sebastian Page 8, Paragraph 8 discloses installing the upgrade previously distributed)
determining when the clock in each node of the one or more distributed computer nodes matches the activation time; (Sebastian Page 8, Paragraph 9-10 discloses carrying out the activation at a precise, suspending activation until optimal individual times by using central clock or timer. Thus, this reference shows syncing the clocks and waiting to the activation time to activate the update on each system)
and in response to the determination, simultaneously activate the firmware on each node of the one or more distributed computer nodes. (Sebastian Page 4, Step 5 and Step 6, discloses after the installation of the update, the system wide activation takes places (accounting for latencies) on all devices to ensure that the new software is used simultaneously on all entities).
Sebastian does not explicitly disclose preparing a firmware payload with an updated firmware and an activation time (interpreted as single payload which contain both firmware and activation time). However, OH discloses preparing a firmware payload which an updated firmware and update time (e.g. paragraph [0072]). Thus, it is obvious to combine the references together so single payload can carry/contains multiple including firmware and activation time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian to incorporate the teachings of OH to “preparing a firmware payload with an updated firmware and an activation time” in order to provide instructions to the nodes on the attached firmware payload of when to start the update, further ensuring that all the updates are ready to commence in sync decreasing update down-time.
Sebastian in view of OH lacks explicitly
wherein the activation time is based on at least one of: an amount of time used to install at least one previous firmware version on the one or more distributed computer nodes; or a number of nodes in the one or more distributed computer nodes;
Zaina teaches
wherein the activation time is based on at least one of: an amount of time used to install at least one previous firmware version on the one or more distributed computer nodes; (Zaina abstract, Column 3, lines 64-67 and column 4, lines 1-19 discloses the automated update system training from historical patch information that includes information regarding previous installation times to make an installation patch time for the patch on the system environment. Further shown in Zaina column 8, lines 9-15 discloses using historical time to predict time period to install patch. While Zaina lacks explicitly activation time, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zaina with Sebastian in view of OH, in order to obtain the activation timing by using historical timing information.) or a number of nodes in the one or more distributed computer nodes;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH to incorporate the teachings of Zaina to “wherein the activation time is based on at least one of: an amount of time used to install at least one previous firmware version on the one or more distributed computer nodes; or a number of nodes in the one or more distributed computer nodes;” in order to obtain a more accurate activation timing by using previous timing information, thus increasing the efficiency/accuracy of the activation timing.
Regarding Claim 10, Sebastian in view of OH discloses in further view of Zaina:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data center orchestrator determines the activation time (Sebastian Page 3, Paragraph 3 discloses central entity influencing process times).
Regarding Claim 11, Sebastian in view of OH discloses in further view of Zaina:
The system of claim 1, wherein the activation time is transferred to the distributed computer node as a separate payload from the updated firmware (Sebastian Page 8 Paragraph 1 and 6 discloses the software update distributed to the devices first, later the central instance distributes to each machine the activation timing)
With regards to Claim 20, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2-8, 12-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (EP 4498234 A1) hereinafter Sebastian in view of OH et al. (US 20120060152 A1) hereinafter OH in further view of Zaina et al. (US 11556330 B2) hereinafter Zaina in further view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20240118886 A1) hereinafter Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 2, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses:
The system of claim 1,
Sebastian in view of OH Zaina
Transferring to the data center orchestrator, notifications based on whether each node of the one or more distributed nodes activated successfully.
Ishikawa teaches
Transferring to the data center orchestrator, notifications based on whether each node of the one or more distributed nodes activated successfully. (Ishikawa Paragraph [0070] discloses the ECU notifying the OTA center of the software update status of the completion of installation and successfulness)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Transferring to the data center orchestrator, notifications based on whether each node of the one or more distributed nodes activated successfully” in order to know whether the update was successful or not and determine if a rollback is needed or not in order to keep the system running in the case of a failed update. This notification prevents a failed update from going unnoticed/unresolved, thus increasing update efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 2,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
Transmitting a rollback command to roll back firmware on the distributed computer nodes based on the notifications
Ishikawa teaches
Transmitting a rollback command to roll back firmware on the distributed computer nodes based on the notifications (Ishikawa Paragraph [0074] discloses ECU notified of the activation result of success or fail. Paragraph [0079] further discloses on fail notification, rollback is performed for the update target).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Transmitting a rollback command to roll back firmware on the distributed computer nodes based on the notifications” in order to allow the system to remain operable in the instance of an update failure.
Regarding claim 4, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 3, Preparing a payload, Activation time (OH Paragraph [0072] teaches preparing a payload and storing an activation time with updated firmware in the payload)
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
alternative version of firmware
Ishikawa teaches
alternative version of firmware and activation time (Ishikawa Paragraph [0079] teaches restoring to an old software on failed activation. In Sebastian in view of OH, the payload would include information about activation time and firmware. In combination of Ishikawa, where the restoring to an old software is interpreted as an alternative software, it would further include getting a new/alterative activation time for the payload taught in OH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Preparing a payload with information about an alternative version of firmware and activation time” in order to prepare another payload with the necessary information to successfully conduct a rollback, allowing the system to be rebooted at the appropriate timing with alternative/older firmware, further preventing down time upon update failure.
Regarding claim 5, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 4,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
Wherein the alternative version of the firmware is selected based on most recent checkpoint in time with a successful activation of firmware on the one or more distributed computer nodes
Ishikawa teaches
Wherein the alternative version of the firmware is selected based on most recent checkpoint in time with a successful activation of firmware on the one or more distributed computer nodes (Ishikawa Paragraph [0093], [0095] and [0096] discloses requesting version information of old/previous software, acquiring the old software, and loading the old version on the update target to restore to the state before the update. Furthermore, the old version being loaded would be the previously installed firmware that was successfully activated and utilized. In Ishikawa [0104], the rollback to previously successful checkpoint is also checked, otherwise the target ECU may request to perform rollback again ensuring the successful activation of firmware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Wherein the alternative version of the firmware is selected based on most recent checkpoint in time with a successful activation of firmware on the one or more distributed computer nodes” in order to successfully restore the system before the installation failure, allowing the system to be able to run on a previous version.
Regarding claim 6, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 4,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
Wherein the information about the alternative version of the firmware includes a version number.
Ishikawa teaches
Wherein the information about the alternative version of the firmware includes a version number. (Ishikawa Paragraph [0103] discloses the ECU specifies the version and requests the old software from the mobile equipment. The version of the software requested is specified by the old version information. Then in response to the request from the ECU, the mobile equipment acquires the software of the specified version from the OTA center and sends the acquired software to the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Wherein the information about the alternative version of the firmware includes a version number” in order to choose which is the latest software to restore to before the update [0103].
Regarding claim 7, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 4,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
Wherein the information about the alternative version of the firmware includes an alternate firmware
Ishikawa teaches
Wherein the information about the alternative version of the firmware includes an alternate firmware (Ishikawa Paragraph [0103] discloses version information containing old software)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Wherein the information about the alternative version of the firmware includes an alternate firmware” in order to obtain an old/alternate firmware version for the rollback before the update failed, allowing the system to continue to operate.
Regarding claim 8 Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 1,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
Wherein a node of the one or more distributed computer nodes, on failure to activate, continues to use a previous version of the firmware.
Ishikawa teaches
Wherein a node of the one or more distributed computer nodes, on failure to activate, continues to use a previous version of the firmware. (Ishikawa [0103] and [0092] discloses when the software fails to activate, the system instead starts with the pre-updated program)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to “Wherein a node of the one or more distributed computer nodes, on failure to activate, continues to use a previous version of the firmware” in order to ensure when the system fails to update, the system will recover itself back to a previous version to maintain operability instead of remaining inactive.
Claim(s) 12-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (EP 4498234 A1) hereinafter Sebastian in view of OH et al. (US 20120060152 A1) hereinafter OH in further view of Zaina et al. (US 11556330 B2) hereinafter Zaina in further view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20240118886 A1) hereinafter Ishikawa in further view of Deshmukh et al. (US 11775278 B1) hereinafter Deshmukh.
Regarding claim 12, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina in further view of Ishikawa discloses:
A computer-implemented method for performing synchronized firmware activation, the method comprising: preparing a firmware payload with an updated firmware and an activation time; transferring the firmware payload to one or more distributed computer nodes to perform operations comprising: updating the firmware at each node of the one or more distributed nodes; determining when a clock in each node of the one or more distributed computer nodes matches the activation time; andin response to the determination, performing synchronized activation of the firmware on each node of the one or more distributed computer nodes (See claim 1 rejection above)
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina in further view of Ishikawa lacks explicitly
wherein the activation time is based on at least one of: a network speed of a network to be used to activate the updated firmware; or a number of nodes in the one or more distributed computer nodes.
Deshmukh teaches
wherein the activation time is based on at least one of: a network speed of a network to be used to activate the updated firmware; or a number of nodes in the one or more distributed computer nodes. (Deshmukh column 6, lines 21-44 discloses the update time period can include a period of time to execute the update of firmware code if appropriate depending on network communication bandwidths. While Deshmukh does not state explicitly activation time but instead execution time, it would be obvious to combine Deshmukh in order to teach acquiring an activation time based on the speed of the network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in view of Zaina in further view of Ishikawa to “wherein the activation time is based on at least one of: a network speed of a network to be used to activate the updated firmware; or a number of nodes in the one or more distributed computer nodes.” In order to obtain a more accurate/reliable activation time by considering network/system factors.
With regards to Claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to Claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to Claim 15, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to Claim 16, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
With regards to Claim 17, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
With regards to Claim 19, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (EP 4498234 A1) hereinafter Sebastian in view of OH et al. (US 20120060152 A1) hereinafter OH in further view of Zaina et al. (US 11556330 B2) hereinafter Zaina and in further in view of Maruyama (US 20130227538 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses
The system of claim 20,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks
wherein the data center orchestration component retrieves the updated firmware from a software code repository as part of a periodic check for software updates for the plurality computer nodes.
Maruyama teaches
wherein the data center orchestration component retrieves the updated firmware from a software code repository as part of a periodic check for software updates for the plurality computer nodes. (Maruyama [0015], [0111] and [0123]-[0124] discloses a firmware data management database for storing information relevant to updating firmware data and firmware update management unit checking if server is in need of update at a predetermined update check date, where the firmware update management unit determines that if the server is not in need of update, the unit specifies the next update check date, while if the server does need to update, the unit loads the firmware data and then specifies the next update check date).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Maruyama to “wherein the data center orchestration component retrieves the updated firmware from a software code repository as part of a periodic check for software updates for the plurality computer nodes” in order to keep the nodes consistently updated, thus improving their efficiency/performance.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (EP 4498234 A1) hereinafter Sebastian in view of OH et al. (US 20120060152 A1) hereinafter OH in further view of Zaina et al. (US 11556330 B2) hereinafter Zaina and in further in view of Carter et al. (US 9753718 B1) hereinafter Carter
In regards to claim 22, Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina discloses:
The system of claim 20,
Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina lacks explicitly
wherein the activation time is further based on a time at least one computer node of the plurality of computer nodes confirms receipt of the updated firmware.
Carter Teaches
wherein the activation time is further based on a time at least one computer node of the plurality of computer nodes confirms receipt of the updated firmware. (Carter figure 7, column 9 lines 56-67 and column 10 lines 1-23 discloses a cluster of nodes upgraded simultaneously. To do so, each node is first installed with new operating system software and the tracking state marked as upgraded when the update is complete. In response to the last node finishing upgrading, then the set of executables can now be executed at the same time, thus showing the time to activate the update on all the nodes is when the nodes first send a confirmation of the upgrade being complete).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sebastian in view of OH in further view of Zaina to incorporate the teachings of Carter to “wherein the activation time is further based on a time at least one computer node of the plurality of computer nodes confirms receipt of the updated firmware” in order to determine the update was successful before executing, thus preventing failures during node update synchronization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied or has been combined with an additional reference in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this
application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from
Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To
file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional
questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or
571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights