DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending and examined in this office action.
Claim 2 recites “for update”. Applicant is advised to amend it to “for update of the electronic device” for more clarity.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-6 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.
Claim 5 recites “regarding the update of the electronic device”. The term “the update” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “the update” is interpreted as “an update”.
Claim 6 is rejected for depending on claim 5.
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: a determination unit; an output unit; and a control unit in claim 1; a second communication unit, a second control unit, an instruction unit in claim 5. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites an information output apparatus comprising: a communication unit; a determination unit; an output unit; and a control unit, wherein the communication unit is an electronic device which causes a notification to be issued indicating that control information is updatable, and receives update preparation completion information indicating that update preparation for the electronic device is completed, the determination unit determines whether current time reaches preset time, the output unit outputs update executable information indicating that the electronic device is updatable, and when the communication unit receives the update preparation completion information and the determination unit determines that the current time reaches the preset time, the control unit makes the output unit output the update executable information.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: determines whether current time reaches preset time (a mental step of determination). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “outputs update executable information indicating that the electronic device is updatable”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data output for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity, as evidenced in Volpe (paragraphs [0150][0151]; after verification of the downloaded software update, the update manager can schedule the software update installation at a preset time; reaching the preset time, the installation of the software update is triggered (i.e. the trigger is the update executable information that indicates the electronic device is updatable)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “makes the output unit output the update executable information”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data output for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity, as evidenced in Volpe (paragraphs [0150][0151]; after verification of the downloaded software update, the update manager can schedule the software update installation at a preset time; reaching the preset time, the installation of the software update is triggered, a timer makes a software module to issue a trigger for the installation). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “causes a notification to be issued indicating that control information is updatable”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data output for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity, as evidenced in Volpe (paragraph [0150][0151]; the update manager of a device determines the current operational state, the monitor indicates that resources for facilitating the installation of the software update are available, i.e. the monitor indicates the updatable state (a notification to be issued indicating that control information is updatable))). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “receives update preparation completion information indicating that update preparation for the electronic device is completed”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as a communication unit; a determination unit; an output unit; and
a control unit. These additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic software/hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims 2-6 recite more steps of a mental process (such as determining) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 2-6 recite more extra-solution activities (receiving, outputting, issuing a notification), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volpe (US PGPUB 2016/0253471).
Per claim 1, Volpe discloses an information output apparatus comprising: a communication; unit; wherein the communication unit is an electronic device which causes a notification to be issued indicating that control information is updatable, and receives update preparation completion information indicating that update preparation for the electronic device is completed (paragraph [0119]; that the device’s functionalities can be carried out by one or more software modules stored in a memory unit and executed by the processors; paragraph [0150][0151]; the update manager (made of different functional modules) of a device determines the current operational state, the monitor indicates that resources for facilitating the installation of the software update are available, i.e. the monitor indicates the updatable state (a notification to be issued indicating that control information is updatable); the update manager can verify the download completed successfully and locally store the downloaded software update at a memory (i.e. the result of a successful verification indicates update preparation completion information)); the determination unit determines whether current time reaches preset time (paragraphs [0151][0028]; the update manager can schedule the software update installation at a particular time(preset time); the system contains a watchdog timer which can be used to determine time); the output unit outputs update executable information indicating that the electronic device is updatable, and when the communication unit receives the update preparation completion information and the determination unit determines that the current time reaches the preset time, the control unit makes the output unit output the update executable information (paragraphs [0150][0151]; after verification of the downloaded software update, the update manager can schedule the software update installation at a preset time; reaching the preset time, the installation of the software update is triggered (i.e. the trigger is the update executable information that indicates the electronic device is updatable)).
Per claim 2, Volpe further discloses wherein the update preparation completion information is information indicating that the electronic device downloads the control information for update (paragraph [0150]; the update manager of a device can verify the download completed successfully and locally store the downloaded software update at, a memory (i.e. a successful verification indicates update preparation completion information indicating that update preparation for the electronic device is completed)).
Per claim 3, Volpe further discloses wherein the control unit makes the output unit output an update preparation start instruction to start preparation for the update when the determination unit determines that the current time is time earlier than the preset time by a predetermined period of time (paragraphs [0049][0056][0150]; wherein the time period (preset time) to install the software update is determined based a time needed for download; the monitor is configured to determine a download period to download the software update; i.e. before the preset time of installation, the monitor must sends out a download instruction (update preparation start instruction) to download the software update).
Per claim 4, Volpe further discloses wherein when the communication unit receives update completion information indicating that the update of the electronic device completes based on the update preparation completion information (paragraphs [0150][0153]; the update manager of a device can verify the download completed successfully and locally store the downloaded software update at, a memory (i.e. a successful verification indicates update preparation completion information); once the software update is installed, and the update manager verifies the installation (a successful verification indicates update completion information)); the control unit does not make the output unit output the update executable information even if the determination unit determines that the current time reaches the preset time (paragraphs [0150][0153]; after the software update is successfully installed (indicated by a successful verification/update completion information), there is no need to trigger (update executable information) a software update installation at the preset time).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe, in view of Zhu et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0174242) hereinafter Zhu.
Per claim 5, Volpe does not explicitly teach all of limitations of claim 5. However, Zhu suggests a terminal apparatus configured to operate the electronic device, wherein the terminal apparatus includes a second communication unit configured to receive the update executable information, a notification unit configured to issue a notification indicating update information regarding the update of the electronic device; a second control unit configured to make the notification unit issue the notification indicating the update information, when the second communication unit receives the update executable information (paragraphs [0059][0062]; a network comprises of peer mobile computing devices (terminal apparatus and the electronic device), they can communicate with each other to perform software update; device A can obtain descriptive information (the update executable information) about firmware published from device B; device A can use the information to determine an updated version of firmware is available from device B, and to request (a notification indicating update information) and obtain the updated version of firmware).
Volpe further suggests an instruction unit configured to issue an instruction to perform update necessity confirmation for checking whether there is the control information configured to execute the update, when a predetermined input is received, and the second control unit makes the notification unit issue a notification indicating a result of the update necessity confirmation, and, when the predetermined input is received after the update executable information is received, makes the notification unit issue the notification indicating the update information (paragraph [0151]; the update manager of a device (i.e. the terminal apparatus) checks (a predetermined input/command to check) the current operational state of the monitor indicates that resources for facilitating the installation of the software update are available (the control information configured to execute the update); after the operational state is confirmed (a notification indicating a result of the update necessity confirmation)) then the update manager can schedule the software update installation (notification unit issue the notification indicating the update information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Volpe and Zhu to utilize a peer-to-peer update method to update device A (terminal apparatus) based on firmware published by device B (electronic device), as such peer to peer update method allows firmware updating without connecting to a server (for more flexibility).
Per claim 6, Volpe further suggests wherein the second control unit does not make the notification unit issue a notification indicating the update executable information when the second communication unit receives update completion information indicating that the update of the electronic device is completed based on the update executable information after the update executable information is received (paragraphs [0150][0153]; once the software update is installed, and the update manager verifies the installation (a successful verification indicates update completion information)); after the software update is successfully installed (indicated by a successful verification/update completion information), there is no need to trigger (update executable information) a software update installation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193