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 Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/26/2025. In the instant Amendment, claims 1-39 are cancelled; claims 40, 51 and 58 are amended; claims 40, 51 and 58 are independent claims. Claims 40-59 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The non-statutory double patenting rejection to claims 1-24 has been withdrawn because applicant filed a terminal disclaimer on 11/25/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 40,51 and 58 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/25/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No: 11,831,654 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 40-47 and 51-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov et al (“Djabarov,” US 20140317614), Hruska et al (“Hruska,” US 20140266688) in view of Zhu et al (“Zhu,” US 20060174242) and further in view of Freedman et al (“Freedman,” US 20130247166).
Regarding claim 40, Djarabov discloses a method of a remote device receiving a pushed over-the-air (OTA) payload from a push server, comprising:
periodically collecting, on the remote device, telemetry data from telemetry sensors of the remote device, comprising storing the telemetry data in a local telemetry cache, (Djarabov describes periodically collecting [0020], [0038], on the remote device [0016], telemetry data [0091] from telemetry sensors [0091] of the remote device [0016], comprising storing the telemetry data [0091] in a local telemetry cache [0056])
receiving from the push server the pushed OTA payload; (Djabarov, [0029] describes receiving from the push server [0038], [0016] the pushed OTA payload [0036], [0037])
Djarabov fails to explicitly disclose and mirroring the telemetry data to a telemetry storage service;
However, in an analogous art, Hruska discloses and mirroring the telemetry data to a telemetry storage service, (Hruska describes [0008]-[0009] and mirroring the telemetry data to a telemetry storage service, [0087], [0015]-[0016])
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 the teachings of Hruska with the method/system of Djarabov to include and mirroring the telemetry data to a telemetry storage service. One would have been motivated to transferring of logged data of the data logging devices to a server through a gateway using different networks (Hruska, [0002]).
Djarabov and Hruska fail to explicitly disclose authenticating the push server, comprising proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value.
However, in an analogous art, Zhu discloses authenticating the push server, comprising proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value, (Zhu discloses [0005], [0007], [0063]-[0065] authenticating the push server, comprising proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value [0088]).
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 the teachings of Zhu with the method/system of Djarabov and Hruska to include authenticating the push server, comprising proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value. One would have been motivated to provide a firmware update system (Zhu, [0023]).
Djarabov, Hruska and Zhu fail to explicitly disclose and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload.
However, in an analogous art, Freedman discloses and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload, (Freedman discloses in paragraph [0005]-[0006], [0008]-[0009] and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload)
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 the teachings of Freedman with the method/system of Djarabov, Hruska and Zhu to include and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload.. One would have been motivated to provide on demand management of mobile devices (Freedman, [0001]).
Regarding claim 41, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov further discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises receiving from the push server a telemetry package including telemetry data purportedly received from the telemetry storage service, (Djabarov, [0040] describes wherein proving that the push server [0038], [0016] has access to the telemetry storage service [0071] comprises receiving from the push server [0038], [0016] a telemetry package including telemetry data [0091] purportedly received from the telemetry storage service [0071)
comparing the telemetry package to corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, (Djabarov, [0058] describes comparing the telemetry package to corresponding telemetry data [0091] from the local telemetry cache [0071])
and accepting proof based on determining that the telemetry data purportedly from the telemetry storage service match the corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, (Djabarov, [0059] describes and accepting proof based on determining that the telemetry data [0091] purportedly from the telemetry storage service [0071] match the corresponding telemetry data [0091] from the local telemetry cache [0071])
Regarding claim 42, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov further discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises receiving from the push server a telemetry package including telemetry data purportedly received from the telemetry storage service, (Djabarov, [0040] describes wherein proving that the push server [0038], [0016] has access to the telemetry storage service [0071] comprises receiving from the push server [0038], [0016] a telemetry package including telemetry data [0025] purportedly received from the telemetry storage service [0071])
requesting and receiving the telemetry data of the telemetry package from the telemetry storage service, and comparing the telemetry data received from the telemetry storage service to the telemetry data of the telemetry package, (Djabarov, describes [0036] requesting and receiving the telemetry data [0025] of the telemetry package from the telemetry storage service [0071], and comparing the telemetry data [0025] received from the telemetry storage service [0071] to the telemetry data [0025] of the telemetry package)
Regarding claim 43, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 42.
Djabarov further discloses wherein requesting the telemetry data from the telemetry storage service comprises requesting via a communication channel out of band of a communication channel that the remote device received the telemetry package on, (Djabarov, describes wherein requesting [0039] the telemetry data [0025] from the telemetry storage service [0071] comprises requesting via a communication channel out of band [0038] of a communication channel [0038] that the remote device [0018] received the telemetry package on [0091])
Regarding claim 44, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov further discloses wherein the OTA payload is a software update or firmware update, (Djarabov, describes wherein the OTA payload [0016],[0036] is a software update [0045] or firmware update [0039])
Regarding claim 45, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 44.
Djarabov further discloses further comprising applying the software update or firmware update only after authenticating the push server, (Djabarov, [0045] describes further comprising applying the software update [0045 or firmware update [0039] only after authenticating [0054]-[0055] the push server [0038]-[0016])
Regarding claim 46, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov further discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises comparing, in clear text, a telemetry value that the push server sent, and verifying that it matches a corresponding telemetry value that the remote device sent to the telemetry storage service, (Djabarov, [] describes wherein proving that the push server [0038], [0016], has access to the telemetry storage service [0045], [0091] comprises comparing, in clear text, a telemetry value [0091] that the push server sent [0038], [0016], and verifying [0049] that it matches a corresponding telemetry value [0091] that the remote device [0018] sent to the telemetry storage service [0045], [0091])
Regarding claim 47, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov further discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises comparing a hash of a telemetry value that the push server sent, and verifying that it matches a hash of a corresponding telemetry value that the remote device sent to the telemetry storage service, (Djabarov, describes wherein proving that the push server [0038], [0016] has access to the telemetry storage service [0045], [0091] comprises comparing a hash [0059] of a telemetry value [0091] that the push server sent [0038], [0016], and verifying [0059] that it matches a hash [0059] of a corresponding telemetry value [0091] that the remote device [0018] sent to the telemetry storage service [0045], [0091])
Regarding claim 51, claim 51 is directed to one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media. Claim 51 is similar in scope to claim 40 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 52, claim 52 is directed to the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media of claim 51. Claim 52 is similar in scope to claim 41 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 53, claim 53 is directed to the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media of claim 51. Claim 53 is similar in scope to claim 42 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 54, claim 54 is directed to the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media of claim 53. Claim 54 is similar in scope to claim 43 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 55, claim 55 is directed to the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media of claim 51. Claim 55 is similar in scope to claim 44 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 56, claim 56 is directed to the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media of claim 51. Claim 55 is similar in scope to claim 45 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 48 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov et al (“Djabarov,” US 20140317614), Hruska et al (“Hruska,” US 20140250430), Hruska et al (“Hruska,” US), Zhu et al (“Zhu,” US 20060174242) in view of Freedman et al (“Freedman,” US 20130247166) and further in view of Nayshtut et al (“Nayshtut,” US 20160092697).
Regarding claim 48, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman fail to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a cryptographic certificate for the telemetry storage service, and wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises verifying a cryptographic attestation that a telemetry value the push server provides was signed by the telemetry storage service.
However, in an analogous art, Nayshtut discloses further comprising receiving a cryptographic certificate for the telemetry storage service, and wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises verifying a cryptographic attestation that a telemetry value the push server provides was signed by the telemetry storage service, (Nayshtut describes [0028] further comprising receiving a cryptographic certificate for the telemetry storage service [0030], [0067], and wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service [0030], [0067], [0003] comprises [0028] verifying a cryptographic attestation that a telemetry value the push server [0037], [0055] provides was signed by the telemetry storage service [0030], [0067])
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 the teachings of Nayshtut with the method/system of Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman to include further comprising receiving a cryptographic certificate for the telemetry storage service, and wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises verifying a cryptographic attestation that a telemetry value the push server provides was signed by the telemetry storage service. One would have been motivated to provide a temporary pseudonymous identity for a user (Nayshtut, [0001]).
Regarding claim 57, claim 57 is directed to the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable media of claim 51. Claim 57 is similar in scope to claim 48 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov et al (“Djabarov,” US 20140317614), Hruska et al (“Hruska,” US 20140250430), Zhu et al (“Zhu,” US 20060174242) in view of Freedman et al (“Freedman,” US 20130247166) and further in view of Carroll et al (“Carroll,” US 7418596).
Regarding claim 49, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman fail to explicitly disclose wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises instructing the push server to encrypt the OTA payload using a key based on a specified telemetry value from the telemetry storage service, and attempting to decrypt the OTA payload using a corresponding telemetry value from the local telemetry cache.
However, in an analogous art, Carroll discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises instructing the push server to encrypt the OTA payload using a key based on a specified telemetry value from the telemetry storage service, and attempting to decrypt the OTA payload using a corresponding telemetry value from the local telemetry cache, (Carroll discloses wherein proving that the push server (Col. 9, Lines 4-5; Col. 12, Lines 54-55) has access to the telemetry storage service comprises instructing the push server (Col. 9, Lines 4-5; Col. 12, Lines 54-55) to encrypt the OTA payload (Col. 18, Lines 1-3; Col. 17, Line 6; Col. 18, Lines 1-3) using a key based on a specified telemetry value (Col. 3, Line 26) from the telemetry storage service (Col. 3, Line 36; Col. 13, Line 23), and attempting to decrypt the OTA payload (Col. 4, Lines 28-29; Col. 18, Lines 1-3) using a corresponding telemetry value (Col. 3, Line 36) from the local telemetry cache (Col. 13, Line 23)
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 the teachings of Carroll with the method/system of Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman to wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises instructing the push server to encrypt the OTA payload using a key based on a specified telemetry value from the telemetry storage service, and attempting to decrypt the OTA payload using a corresponding telemetry value from the local telemetry cache. One would have been motivated to distribute cryptographic keys (Carroll, Col. 2, Lines 65-66).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov et al (“Djabarov,” US 20140317614), Hruska et al (“Hruska,” US 20140250430), Zhu et al (“Zhu,” US 20060174242) in view of Freedman et al (“Freedman,” US 20130247166) and further in view of Phatak et al (“Phatak,” US 20100306533).
Regarding claim 50, Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman disclose the method of claim 40.
Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman fail to explicitly disclose wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service is part of a multi-factor authentication scheme.
However, in an analogous art, Phatak discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service is part of a multi-factor authentication scheme, (Phatak describes wherein proving that the push server [0034] has access to the telemetry storage service [0044] is part of a multi-factor authentication scheme [0017])
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 the teachings of Phatak with the method/system of Djarabov, Hruska, Zhu and Freedman to include wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service is part of a multi-factor authentication scheme.. One would have been motivated to enhance the security of mulit-factor authentication schemes (Phatak, [0003]).
Claims 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey et al (“Mahaffey,” US 20160163121), Djabarov et al (“Djabarov,” US 20140317614) in view of Zhu et al (“Zhu,” US 20060174242) and further in view of Freedman et al (“Freedman,” US 20130247166).
Regarding claim 58, Mahaffey discloses an internet of things (IoT) device, comprising:
a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory; (Mahaffey, [0043] describes a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory)
a network interface circuit; (Mahaffey describes [0043] a network interface circuit)
a plurality of telemetry sensors; and (Mahaffey describes [0298], [0083] a plurality of telemetry sensors; and)
instructions encoded within the memory to instruct the processor circuit to: (Mahaffey describes [0043] instructions encoded within the memory to instruct the processor circuit to:)
periodically collect telemetry data from telemetry; (Mahaffey, [0215] describes periodically collect telemetry data from telemetry [0298])
transmit at least part of the telemetry data to a telemetry storage service via the network interface circuit; (Mahaffey describes [0298] transmit at least part of the telemetry data [0298] to a telemetry storage service [0046] via the network interface circuit [0043])
store at least part of the telemetry data in a local telemetry cache; (Mahaffey describes [0298] store at least part of the telemetry data in a local telemetry cache [0046])
Mahaffey fails to explicitly disclose receive, via the network interface circuit, from a push server, a pushed OTA payload for the IoT device; authenticate the push server, comprising determining that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service; and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload.
However, in an analogous art, Djabarov discloses receive, via the network interface circuit, from a push server, a pushed OTA payload for the IoT device; (Djabarov, describes receive, via the network interface circuit [0043], from a push server [0038], [0016], a pushed OTA payload for the IoT device [0113])
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 the teachings of Djabarov with the method/system of Mahaffey to include receive, via the network interface circuit, from a push server, a pushed OTA payload for the IoT device;.. One would have been motivated to provide over-the-air software updates (Djabarov, [0002]).
Mahaffey and Djabarov fail to explicitly disclose authenticate the push server, comprising determining that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value.
However, in an analogous art, Zhu discloses authenticate the push server, comprising determining that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value; (Zhu discloses [0005], [0007], [0063]-[0065] authenticate the push server, comprising determining that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value [0088]).
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 the teachings of Zhu with the method/system of Mahaffey and Djabarov to include authenticate the push server, comprising determining that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry storage service by requesting a specific cached telemetry value and receiving from the push server the specific cached telemetry value. One would have been motivated to provide a firmware update system (Zhu, [0023]).
Mahaffey, Djabarov and Zhu fail to explicitly disclose and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload.
However, in an analogous art, Freedman discloses and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload, (Freedman discloses in paragraph [0005]-[0006], [0008]-[0009] and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload)
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 the teachings of Freedman with the method/system of Mahaffey, Djabarov and Zhu to include and based on the and based on the authenticating, accepting the pushed OTA payload. One would have been motivated to provide on demand management of mobile devices (Freedman, [0001]).
Regarding claim 59, Mahaffey, Djabarov, Zhu and Freedman disclose the IoT device of claim 58.
Zhu further discloses wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises receiving from the push server a telemetry package including telemetry data purportedly received from the telemetry storage service, (Zhu [0005], [0007], [0063]-[0065] wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises receiving from the push server a telemetry package including telemetry data purportedly received from the telemetry storage service [0088])
comparing the telemetry package to corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, (Zhu [0005], [0007], [0063]-[0065] comparing the telemetry package to corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, [0088])
and accepting proof based on determining that the telemetry data purportedly from the telemetry storage service match the corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, (Zhu [0005], [0007], [0063]-[0065 and accepting proof based on determining that the telemetry data purportedly from the telemetry storage service match the corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, [0088])
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 the teachings of Zhu with the method/system of Mahaffey and Djabarov to include wherein proving that the push server has access to the telemetry storage service comprises receiving from the push server a telemetry package including telemetry data purportedly received from the telemetry storage service, comparing the telemetry package to corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache, and accepting proof based on determining that the telemetry data purportedly from the telemetry storage service match the corresponding telemetry data from the local telemetry cache. One would have been motivated to provide a firmware update system (Zhu, [0023]).
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 JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/ Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439