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
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 12-20 are newly added. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. The claims 1 and 9 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a plurality of processing units for controlling electrically and/or electronically controllable components of the household appliance;”, “a communication unit for allowing a data communication between the household appliance and an external server through a communication network” and “wherein the communication unit is configured to: receive from the external server an update data distribution comprising firmware update data packages for updating corresponding processing units, wherein the update data distribution includes a software component configured to be installed at, and executed by, at least one of said processing units, said software component being configured to selectively enable, between the communication unit and each one of the plurality of processing units, a respective communication line; and deliver a firmware update package to a selected processing unit through the respective communication line between the communication unit and the selected processing unit enabled by said software component during an update operating mode of the household appliance” and while Claim 9 recites “the communication unit being configured for carrying out during said update operating mode the following operations for each second processing unit of the set of second processing units: comparing a version of the instructions set stored at said second processing unit with the latest version of said instructions set included in the firmware update package; and selecting said second processing units for delivering thereto the firmware update package if the instructions set stored at said processing unit has a version different from said latest version”, which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “a plurality of processing units” and “a communication unit”, respectively, coupled with functional language “controlling”, “allowing”, “receiving”, “delivering”, “carrying out”, “comparing” and “selecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 2-11 are also interpreted based on their claim dependencies.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 7, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PGPub 20140344798), in view of Noh (US PGPub 20140188463), and further in view of Arlitt (US Patent 6113252).
As per Claim 1. Sasaki teaches of a [household] appliance comprising: a plurality of processing units for controlling electrically and/or electronically controllable components of the [household] appliance; and, (Figs 1-2, Par 1, The present invention relates to a production system including a plurality of controllers that control a plurality of pieces of production equipment, respectively, and a controller management apparatus that manages the plurality of controllers, and particularly relates to upgrade of a version of software for a controller corresponding to production equipment. Par 24-26, FIG. 1 illustrates the structure of managing a version of software for production lines 4a to 4n each including a plurality of pieces of production equipment. Each of the production lines 4a to 4n is connected to a network 2. Each of the production lines 4a to 4n includes one controller management apparatus 5a to 5n, one or more controllers 6aA to 6nN and one or more pieces of production equipment 7aA to 7nN.)
wherein the communication unit is configured to: wherein the update data distribution includes a software component configured to be installed at, and executed by, at least one of said processing units, said software component being configured to selectively enable, between the communication unit and each one of the plurality of processing units, a respective communication line; and (Fig. 1 and Par 26, The controller management apparatuses 5a to 5n and the controllers 6aA to 6nN are connected to networks 3a to 3n, respectively. That is, a plurality of controllers is connected to one controller management apparatus provided for each production line. Then, the production equipment 7aA to 7nN is connected in a one-to-one correspondence with the controllers 6aA to 6nN. Par 27-28, In the production lines 4a to 4n, different products, different components of the same product or the like are produced by steps such as assembly, processing and examination. For instance, in production line 4a, product A is produced, and in production line 4b, product B is produced. Alternatively, the production lines 4a to 4n may be for different steps of the same product or component. In any case, the production lines 4a to 4n include a plurality of pieces of production equipment 7aA to 7nN for performing each step. Par 31, In such a production system of the present embodiment, a central management apparatus 1 [server] such as an apparatus managing the lines of a factory as a whole or an apparatus managing a plurality of production lines distributes version upgrade software 1a for the controllers 6aA to 6nN. The version upgrade software 1a is distributed to the controller management apparatuses 5a to 5n in the production lines 4a to 4n via the network 2, together with version information 1b indicating the number of the version, the corresponding action description and the like.)
deliver a firmware update package to a selected processing unit through the respective communication line between the communication unit and the selected processing unit enabled by said software component during an update operating mode of the [household] appliance. (Par 31-32, a central management apparatus 1 such as an apparatus managing the lines of a factory as a whole or an apparatus managing a plurality of production lines distributes version upgrade software 1a for the controllers 6aA to 6nN. The version upgrade software 1a is distributed to the controller management apparatuses 5a to 5n in the production lines 4a to 4n via the network 2, together with version information 1b indicating the number of the version, the corresponding action description and the like. Par 33, when new version of software for a controller is distributed, the version information 1b indicating the corresponding action description (a predetermined (specific) action description) to be upgraded is transferred at the same time.)
Sasaki does not specifically teach, however Noh teaches of the household appliance; a communication unit for allowing a data communication between the household appliance and an external server through a communication network; receive from the external server an update data distribution comprising firmware update data packages for updating corresponding processing units, (Fig. 1 and Par 32, The home appliance 200 may perform wireless data communication with the server 300, which is located outside the internal network 10, via an external network 55. Par 113, In addition, the communication module 330 of the server 300 may receive a firmware update request for the home appliance 200 from the home appliance 200 or the mobile terminal 500. Consequently, the server communication module 330 may transmit updated firmware to the home appliance 200 or the mobile terminal 500. Par 117, upon receiving a firmware update request from the home appliance 200 or the mobile terminal 500, the server processor 320 may control updated firmware to be transmitted to the home appliance 200 or the mobile terminal 500.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the household appliance; a communication unit for allowing a data communication between the household appliance and an external server through a communication network; receive from the external server an update data distribution comprising firmware update data packages for updating corresponding processing units, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Noh into that of Sasaki because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
Neither Sasaki nor Noh specifically taches, however Arlitt teaches of wherein the plurality of processing units comprises a first processing unit; a first data bus for allowing data communication between the communication unit and the first processing unit; the first processing unit to configure the first processing unit to selectively enable, for each processing unit of the plurality of processing units, a respective communication line between the communication unit and the processing unit; and deliver, using the first processing unit and the first data bus, … (Fig. 13 and Col 5, lines 10-34, Control electronics for the luminaire, as shown in FIG. 13, comprise a printed circuit board assembly 70 having a central processing unit (CPU) 71 [a first processing unit], preferably in the form of a microprocessor, and associated memory 72 therefor interconnected by a bus system 73 carrying address, data, and control signals. A communications circuit 74 [communication unit] coupled to the microprocessor via the bus system communicates with an external supervisory controller 90 for directing the operation of plural such luminaries. A motor-driver interface circuit 75 coupled to the microprocessor via the bus system 73 operates motors for adjusting the positions of the color wheel, the gobo wheel, and the pan and tilt or X-Y scanning motors. If additional motorized mechanisms are provided for adjusting the dimmer, adjustable iris, image-projecting lens system, and/or variable-diffusion multiple lens array, a second control board 80 is provided having a microprocessor 81 [second processing unit], memory 82, and motor drivers 85. The two control boards are linked from serial bus communication link circuit 76 [communication unit] through the serial data link 77, which is internal to the luminaire, to the serial bus communication link circuit 86. The second, slave, controller is directed in operation by the first, master, controller. Commands received from the external, supervisory controller are relayed from the master control board via the internal serial data link 77 to the slave control board, which then executes the commands.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the plurality of processing units comprises a first processing unit; a first data bus for allowing data communication between the communication unit and the first processing unit; the first processing unit to configure the first processing unit to selectively enable, for each processing unit of the plurality of processing units, a respective communication line between the communication unit and the processing unit; and deliver, using the first processing unit and the first data bus, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Arlitt into that of Sasaki and Noh because this modification can help enable remote over the air software update by providing enhanced functionality, security and smart connectivity without physical service calls for the home appliance.
As per Claim 2, Sasaki further teaches of the household appliance of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of processing units comprises a set of second processing units each one connected to the first processing unit through a corresponding further electrical connection; said selected processing unit comprises a second processing unit selected from said set of second processing units; and said communication line enabled by said software component between the communication unit and the selected processing unit corresponds to a coupling of said first data bus with the further electrical connection corresponding to said selected processing unit. (Par 35-36, The controller management apparatus 5a includes an acquisition unit 18 as an acquisition means, a version change determination unit 9 as a selection means, a software upload unit 10 as a transmission part and an action description storing unit 8 that stores action descriptions of the controllers 6aA to 6nN. The acquisition unit 18 acquires new version of software relating to a predetermined action description that is sent externally (i.e., from the central management apparatus 1). In the present embodiment, the acquisition unit 18 acquires version upgrade software 1a and version information 1b. The version change determination unit 9 selects a controller requiring upgrade from among the plurality of controllers 6aA to 6nN. That is, the version change determination unit 9 refers to the version information 1b among the information acquired by an acquisition unit 18 to determine which controller requires a version change.)
As per Claim 3, Sasaki further teaches of the household appliance of claim 2, wherein said software component is installed at the first processing unit during the update operating mode of the household appliance. (Par 2, Since such software for a controller corresponding to production equipment is installed by a maker of the controller before shipment, the upgrade has to be performed typically by the maker, a dealer company or the like. Par 45, The version change determination unit 9 makes a determination on the upgrade on the basis of the version upgrade information described in the version information 1b and the action descriptions of the controllers 6aA to 6aN stored beforehand in the action description storing unit 15. That is, the version change determination unit 9 selects a controller in which the action description storing unit 15 stores a predetermined action description as a controller requiring upgrade from among the plurality of controllers (S3). Herein, when the new version of software is targeted at a plurality of predetermined action descriptions, the controller in which the action description storing unit 15 stores any one of the predetermined action descriptions will be a target of the upgrade.)
As per Claim 7, Sasaki further teaches of the household appliance of claim 1, wherein the update data distribution further includes a further software component configured to enable a rewriting of instructions set stored at the selected processing unit using the firmware update package delivered to the selected processing unit by the communication unit. (Par 11, The plurality of controllers each includes: storing means that stores software to control the production equipment on a basis of an action description to operate the production equipment; change means that changes software stored in the storing means; and a reception part that receives the new version of software transmitted from the transmission part. The selection means selects, from among the plurality of controllers, a controller including the specific action description as the controller requiring upgrade. Par 41, That is, the software change unit 12 rewrites the software stored in the software storing unit 13 with upgraded software. This change (rewrite) may be performed automatically or may be performed manually by a user. In the present embodiment, the rewrite is performed automatically. During this rewriting, the production equipment cannot be operated, and so during this rewriting, the drive/stop unit 14 stops the operation of the production equipment as a control target of the controller.)
As per Claim 11, neither Sasaki nor Arlitt specifically teaches, however Noh teaches of the household appliance of claim 1, wherein said household appliance is one from a group consisting of: a laundry machine configured to wash and/or dry laundry; a dishwasher; a oven; a refrigerator; and a cooking hob. (Par 5, A refrigerator, which is a home appliance disposed in a house, stores food for users, a laundry treatment machine, which is another home appliance, treats laundry, an air conditioner, which is another home appliance, adjusts room temperature, and a cooking device, which is yet another home appliance, cooks food. Par 33, The home appliance 200 may be an electric device for home use. For example, the home appliance 200 may be a refrigerator 200a (see FIG. 2A), a washing machine 200b (see FIG. 2B), an air conditioner 200c (see FIG. 2C), or a cooking device 200d (see FIG. 2D). In addition, the home appliance 200 may be a cleaner (see FIG. 2E) or a television (TV) (see FIG. 2F).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add said household appliance is a selected one among: a laundry machine configured to wash and/or dry laundry; a dishwasher; a oven; a refrigerator; and a cooking hob, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Noh into that of Sasaki and Arlitt because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
Re Claim 12, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 13, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 14, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 18, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
7. Claims 4, 9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PGPub 20140344798), in view of Noh (US PGPub 20140188463), in view of Arlitt (US Patent 6113252), and further in view of Nickerson (US PGPub 20080027587).
As per Claim 4, none of Sasaki, Noh and Arlitt specifically teaches, however Nickerson teaches of the household appliance of claim 3, wherein each processing unit of said plurality of processing units stores a corresponding instructions set comprising a corresponding application portion and a corresponding bootloader portion, each processing unit of said plurality of processing units being configured to operate in a bootloader mode according to the corresponding bootloader portion if said bootloader mode is activated at a startup of the processing unit, and is configured to operate according to a standard mode according to the corresponding application portion if said bootloader mode is not activated at the startup of the processing unit, and wherein said software component is installed at the first processing unit when the bootloader mode thereof is activated. (Par 211, By keeping the bus in a silent state at least those expansion modules that are in a bootloader state communicating using the secondary protocol will detect the silence on the bus and exit a bootloader state and/or activate a reset transitioning these modules from the bootloader state to a normal operating state. In some implementation, this silent state is initiated at a start up of the control unit and/or main microcontroller 32 as well as following a re-flash so that modules return to normal (or non-bootloader) operating states. Alternatively or additionally, the bootloader and/or controller can issue a command that directs modules to exit the bootloader state.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a corresponding application portion and a corresponding bootloader portion, each processing unit of said plurality of processing units being configured to operate in a bootloader mode according to the corresponding bootloader portion if said bootloader mode is activated at a startup of the processing unit, and is configured to operate according to a standard mode according to the corresponding application portion if said bootloader mode is not activated at the startup of the processing unit, and wherein said software component is installed at the first processing unit when the bootloader mode thereof is activated, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Nickerson into that of Sasaki, Noh and Arlitt because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
As per Claim 9, Sasaki further teaches of the household appliance of claim 4, wherein each firmware update package includes a latest version of the instructions set of a corresponding processing unit, the communication unit being configured for carrying out during said update operating mode the following operations for each second processing unit of the set of second processing units: comparing a version of the instructions set stored at said second processing unit with the latest version of said instructions set included in the firmware update package; and selecting said second processing units for delivering thereto the firmware update package if the instructions set stored at said processing unit has a version different from said latest version. (Par 11, The controller management apparatus includes: acquisition means that acquires new version of software relating to a specific action description, transmitted externally; selection means that selects a controller requiring upgrade from among the plurality of controllers; and a transmission part that transmits the new version of software to the controller selected by the selection means. The plurality of controllers each includes: storing means that stores software to control the production equipment on a basis of an action description to operate the production equipment; change means that changes software stored in the storing means; and a reception part that receives the new version of software transmitted from the transmission part. The selection means selects, from among the plurality of controllers, a controller including the specific action description as the controller requiring upgrade. Par 36, The version change determination unit 9 selects a controller requiring upgrade from among the plurality of controllers 6aA to 6nN. That is, the version change determination unit 9 refers to the version information 1b among the information acquired by an acquisition unit 18 to determine which controller requires a version change. Par 45, The version change determination unit 9 makes a determination on the upgrade on the basis of the version upgrade information described in the version information 1b and the action descriptions of the controllers 6aA to 6aN stored beforehand in the action description storing unit 15.)
Re Claim 15, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 20, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
8. Claims 5, 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PGPub 20140344798), in view of Noh (US PGPub 20140188463), in view of Arlitt (US Patent 6113252), in view of Nickerson (US PGPub 20080027587) and further in view of Daynes (US PGPub 20070245331).
As per Claim 5, none of Sasaki, Noh, Arlitt and Nickerson specifically teaches, however Daynes teaches of the household appliance of claim 4, wherein said software component is a plugin for the bootloader portion of the instructions set of the first processing unit. (Par 9, The extension and system loaders are two other built-in loaders. As with the boot loader, every program has a single instance of each. The extension loader defines extension classes, i.e. classes that use the Java Extension mechanism. Par 25, or example, virtual machine 120 may implement a boot loader for loading core classes, an extension loader for loading extension classes and a system or application loader for loading all other classes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add said software component is a plugin for the bootloader portion of the instructions set of the first processing unit, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Daynes into that of Sasaki, Noh, Arlitt and Nickerson because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
As per Claim 8, Sasaki teaches of the household appliance of claim 4, wherein the update data distribution further includes a further software component configured to enable a rewriting of instructions set stored at the selected processing unit using the firmware update package delivered to the selected processing unit by the communication unit, and (Par 11, The plurality of controllers each includes: storing means that stores software to control the production equipment on a basis of an action description to operate the production equipment; change means that changes software stored in the storing means; and a reception part that receives the new version of software transmitted from the transmission part. The selection means selects, from among the plurality of controllers, a controller including the specific action description as the controller requiring upgrade. Par 41, That is, the software change unit 12 rewrites the software stored in the software storing unit 13 with upgraded software. This change (rewrite) may be performed automatically or may be performed manually by a user. In the present embodiment, the rewrite is performed automatically. During this rewriting, the production equipment cannot be operated, and so during this rewriting, the drive/stop unit 14 stops the operation of the production equipment as a control target of the controller.)
None of Sasaki, Noh, Arlitt and Nickerson specifically teaches, however Daynes teaches of wherein said further software component is a plugin for the bootloader portion of the instructions set of the selected processing unit. (Par 9, The extension and system loaders are two other built-in loaders. As with the boot loader, every program has a single instance of each. The extension loader defines extension classes, i.e. classes that use the Java Extension mechanism. Par 25, or example, virtual machine 120 may implement a boot loader for loading core classes, an extension loader for loading extension classes and a system or application loader for loading all other classes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that said further software component is a plugin for the bootloader portion of the instructions set of the selected processing unit, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Daynes into that of Sasaki, Noh, Arlitt and Nickerson because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
Re Claim 16, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re Claim 19, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
9. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PGPub 20140344798), in view of Noh (US PGPub 20140188463), in view of Arlitt (US Patent 6113252), in view of Nickerson (US PGPub 20080027587), in view of Daynes (US PGPub 20070245331), and further in view of Sheng (CN 114035832).
As per Claim 6, none of Sasaki, Noh, Arlitt, Nickerson and Daynes specifically teaches, however Sheng teaches of the household appliance of claim 5, wherein the bootloader mode of the plurality of processing units is activated during the update operating mode of the household appliance. (Claim 6, Therefore, it can use the convenient characteristic, manufacturer when need to switch reluctance motor controller program updating, the updated program can be downloaded to the memory of the local home appliance, using the BootLoader function of the controller CPU for online upgrading, so that the user can update the program in time in the idle time of the food processor; it does not waste the time of the user, it also saves the logistics of the manufacturer; the maintenance cost is high; it has very high flexibility.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the bootloader mode of the plurality of processing units is activated during the update operating mode of the household appliance, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sheng, into that of Sasaki, Noh, Arlitt, Nickerson and Daynes because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
Re Claim 17, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PGPub 20140344798), in view of Noh (US PGPub 20140188463), in view of Arlitt (US Patent 6113252), in view of Chauvet (US PGPub 20180024537).
As per Claim 10, none of Sasaki, Noh and Arlitt specifically teaches, however Chauvet teaches of the household appliance of any of the preceding claims, of claim 1, wherein said software component is configured to enable said communication line with a point-to-point communication protocol. (Par 136, In other embodiments, data may be shared via point to point communication. Regardless of the shared or point to point communication protocols used, data traffic to/from the application instances executing on virtual devices/components in the compute nodes 1015 are carried on virtual networks 1020 which map to the physical network 1042. Par 151, At block 1316, the system software can configure the new functional unit to receive/send data (e.g., via point to point communication or through shared real time data bus). Par 226, The interconnect can represent any one or more separate physical buses, point to point connections, or both connected by appropriate bridges, adapters, or controllers.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add said software component is configured to enable said communication line with a point-to-point communication protocol, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Chauvet, into that of Sasaki, Noh and Arlitt because this modification can help enhance security and improving performance and stability by using an external server for software updates on home appliances.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 and their dependent claims 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.
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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 on 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193