DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed 5/25/2026.
The instant application having application No. 18/576,250 filed on January 3, 2024, claims priority to foreign parent application KR10-2021-0087948, filed 7/5/2021, and to PCT/US2021/065214, filed 12/27/2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are amended, claims 4 and 11 are canceled, claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-15 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 abstract ides rejection: Applicant's arguments are not persuasive; the amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more, the rejections are maintained as set forth below.
(B). Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant’s amendment to claims necessitated new ground of rejections set forth below.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14, “the firmware” is not clear whether it refers to “a firmware” in line 10, or “a firmware” in line 12 of claim 1. Similarly, “the firmware” that is installable in claims 3, 5, and 6 are not clear whether they refer to the same firmware or not.
Claims 9 and 15 have the same issue as claim 1, and are objected to for the same reason.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, and 12-14 are objected to because of their dependencies from their respective independent claim 1 or 9.
Note that the office action treats them as the same firmware installable in the image forming device.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 9, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 9,
“updating stability information indicating compatibility between each version of the application and each platform version associated with a plurality of firmware installable in the image forming apparatus based on the received error log; and
identifying a firmware to be installed in the image forming device based on the updated stability information;
identifying a firmware to be installed in the image forming device based on the updated stability information;
identifying a firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information and selecting to install a newest version of the firmware among the identified firmware in the image forming device;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually update stability information as defined in the claim; human can manually identify a firmware to be installed or that is instable as defined in the claim, and human can manually select a newest version as defined in the claim. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional element
“receiving an error log for an application installed in an image forming device;”
“transmitting a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication of whether a firmware upgrade is allowed based on the updated stability information.”
Which are insignificant extra-solution activities such as gathering and transmitting data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does 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 additional elements “receiving …” and “transmitting …” are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and transmitting which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a server claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a server to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 9 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 9, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 9.
Claim 1 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 9, i.e. a remote management server, processor, and a memory, but these elements are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not constitute an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 15, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer-readable recording medium to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 9 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 9, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 9.
Claim 15 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 9, i.e. a computer-readable recording medium, and a processor, but these elements are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not constitute an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the error log includes errors that occur based on the application running on a platform associated with the firmware installed in the image forming device.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 3 and 10, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of the firmware is installed in the image forming device.” Wherein “transmit …” process is insignificant extra-solution activity such as data transmitting which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. The “identification” and “detect” processes as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually identify whether the firmware is installable as defined in the claim, and can manually detect incompatibility as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 5 and 12, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a warning that a firmware upgrade is allowed but an incompatibility occurs in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.” These two claims are similar to claims 3 and 10, please see the office action regarding claims 3 and 10 above.
With respect to claim 6, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, detecting that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.” This claim is similar to claims 3 and 10, please see the office action regarding claims 3 and 10 above.
With respect to claims 7 and 13, “wherein the update of the stability information based on the received error log includes:
accumulating and recording a number of errors that occur between an application version and a platform version and, based on the number of errors that occur between the application version and the platform version being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, detecting that there is no compatibility between the corresponding application version and the corresponding platform version.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually perform “accumulating and recording a number of errors” and “detecting” operations as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 8 and 14, “further comprising:
receiving information about a device type of the image forming device with the error log for the application installed in the image forming device; and
updating the stability information based on the received error log and the information about the device type of the image forming device.” Wherein “receiving …” process is insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. The “updating” process as drafted, is functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually perform the updating operation as defined in the claim.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri (US 20200034133 A1, hereinafter “Dattatri”) in view of Lochan et al. (US 20160378455 A1, hereinafter “Lochan”) and Wada (US 20120136844 A1, hereinafter “Wada”).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Dattatri discloses A remote management server comprising (e.g. Fig. 1, Server 104):
a processor (e.g. Fig. 10, Processor 1002); and
a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions cause the processor to (e.g. Fig. 10, Memory 1004):
receive an error log for an application installed in an image forming device (e.g. para [0058], “… During installation, an installation log may be created that includes information as to a success or failure of the installation process and any errors/issues encountered. …”);
update, based on the received error log, stability information indicating compatibility between each version of the application and each platform version associated with a plurality of firmware installable in the image forming device (e.g. para [0059], “At 616, the stability index (determined at 608) may be added to a stability index table. For example, in FIG. 1, the stability index 142 may be added to the stability index table 146 based on the associated configuration and platform. …”);
Dattatri does not appear to explicitly disclose
identify a firmware to be installed in the image forming device based on the updated stability information;
identify a firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information and select to install a newest version of the firmware among the identified firmware in the image forming device; and
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication of whether a firmware upgrade is allowed based on the updated stability information.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Lochan discloses
identify a firmware to be installed in the image forming device based on the updated stability information (e.g. para [0143], “… In some embodiments, determining the compatibility of the first version of the application includes referencing entries of a table (e.g., an Android application package (“APK”) matrix) which stores a list of compatible device specifications for different versions of the application. …” para [0144], “In response to a determination that the first version of the application is not installed on the second electronic device 502-2 (and, in some embodiments, that the first version is compatible with the hardware and/or software (e.g., operating system) of the second electronic device), the first electronic device 502-1 sends (518) to the second electronic device and the second electronic device 502-2 receives from the first electronic device, through the local connection, the one or more installation files for the first version of the application (e.g., installation files 342 for a social network client module 340, FIG. 3). …”);
identify a firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information and select to install a newest version of the firmware among the identified firmware in the image forming device (e.g. para [0143-0144] as cited above. “… For example, if it is determined that a most-recent (i.e., up-to-date) version of the social network client module 340 (e.g., an application providing an interface for a social networking service) is stored on the first electronic device 502-1 but not installed on the second electronic device 502-2 (e.g., the version of the application installed on the second electronic device 502-2 is outdated), the first electronic device 502-1 sends installation files 342 for the most-recent version to the second electronic device 502-2 through an established local connection (e.g., a Bluetooth connection), …”);
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 invention of Dattatri with the invention of Lochan because it provides techniques for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of electronic devices and user satisfaction with such devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of electronic devices and user satisfaction with such devices as suggested by Lochan (see para [0004-0007]).
Dattatri as modified by Lochan does not appear to explicitly disclose
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication of whether a firmware upgrade is allowed based on the updated stability information.
However this is taught in analogous art, Wada (e.g. para [0076], “… After that, the control unit 101 ends this update data file transmission processing. Note that when the PC 200 receives that incompatibility command, the PC control unit 201 can control the display unit 207 to display GUI data indicating that the dependent program is not compatible with the version of the OS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Wada because it provides techniques to notify a user of incompatibility information so that actions can be taken to resolve the detected incompatibility issue. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques to notify a user of incompatibility information so that actions can be taken to resolve the detected incompatibility issue as suggested by Wada (see para [0076-0077]).
With respect to claim 8, Dattatri discloses further comprising:
receiving information about a device type of the image forming device with the error log for the application installed in the image forming device (e.g. para [0020], “… The server may use the unique identifier (e.g., serial number, service tag, or the like) from the gathered data to identify a device platform and a configuration associated with the computing device that sent the data. …” wherein the gathered data read on the error log); and
updating the stability information based on the received error log and the information about the device type of the image forming device. (e.g. para [0020], “… The server may use the events included in the gathered data to determine/update a stability index associated with the software package for the identified device platform and configuration and store the stability index in a stability index table. …”).
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a method that is disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 9.
With respect to claim 14, it recites same features as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 15 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a computer-readable recording medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 15. Note that Dattatri discloses A computer-readable recording medium storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (e.g. Fig. 10, Memory 1004).
Claims 2, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of Lochan and Wada as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, in further view of Nakamoto (US 20090161143 A1, hereinafter “Nakamoto”, cited from IDS filed 1/17/2024).
With respect to claim 2, Dattatri as modified by Lochan and Wada discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the error log includes errors that occur based on the application running on a platform associated with the firmware installed in the image forming device. However, this is taught in analogous art, Nakamoto (e.g. para [0178], “… the monitoring center host 111 refer to an error 1007 and identifies the firmware to be upgraded. As a result, in the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the monitoring center host 111 determines that an error has occurred on the R-CON. That is, in the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the R-CON is identified as the firmware that has caused the error.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Nakamoto because it provides techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware and applying the upgraded firmware even if an error has occurred on an apparatus constituting an image forming apparatus monitoring system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware as suggested by Nakamoto (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 7, Dattatri as modified by Lochan and Wada discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the update of the stability information based on the received error log includes:
accumulating and recording a number of errors that occur between an application version and a platform version and, based on the number of errors that occur between the application version and the platform version being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, detecting that there is no compatibility between the corresponding application version and the corresponding platform version.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Nakamoto (e.g. Fig. 12, column 1203 accumulating and recording a number of errors, para [0172], “A frequency of occurrence (threshold value) 1203 indicates a threshold value for the frequency of occurrence of the corresponding error 1202 within a predetermined time period ("1 day" in FIG. 12) at which the firmware is to be replaced.” Wherein the firmware is to be replaced indicates that no compatibility is detected.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Nakamoto because it provides techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware and applying the upgraded firmware even if an error has occurred on an apparatus constituting an image forming apparatus monitoring system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware as suggested by Nakamoto (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 13, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of Lochan and Wada as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, in further view of Murthy (US 20220253302 A1, hereinafter “Murthy”) and Wada (US 20120136844 A1, hereinafter “Wada”).
With respect to claim 3, Dattatri as modified by Lochan and Wada discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of the firmware is installed in the image forming device.
However, in analogous art, Murthy discloses wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
[transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed] in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of the firmware is installed in the image forming device (e.g. para [0041], “… The baseline profile 129 can include all of the behaviors of the client device 109 from the behavior data 128 or a subset of the behaviors that are verified to be normal or acceptable. …” wherein the behaviors verified to be normal or acceptable suggest no compatibility issue, and the behaviors read on the updated stability information. para [0053], “ In step 309, the management service 120 can identify an update incompatibility based on updated behavior data 128 from the first subset of the client devices 109 that have installed the operating system update 155. …” also see para [0054, 0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Murthy because it provides a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates as suggested by Murthy (see para [0009]).
Although Murthy also discloses providing update ticket through a user interface of the management service or transmitting to a client device, see para [0057] of Murthy, it does not explicitly disclose transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed … However this is taught in analogous art, Wada (e.g. para [0076], “… After that, the control unit 101 ends this update data file transmission processing. Note that when the PC 200 receives that incompatibility command, the PC control unit 201 can control the display unit 207 to display GUI data indicating that the dependent program is not compatible with the version of the OS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Wada because it provides techniques to notify a user of incompatibility information so that actions can be taken to resolve the detected incompatibility issue. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques to notify a user of incompatibility information so that actions can be taken to resolve the detected incompatibility issue as suggested by Wada (see para [0076-0077]).
With respect to claim 10, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of Lochan and Wada as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, in further view of Murthy (US 20220253302 A1, hereinafter “Murthy”).
With respect to claim 5, Dattatri as modified by Lochan and Wada discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a warning that a firmware upgrade is allowed but an incompatibility occurs in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Murthy (e.g. para [0041], “… The baseline profile 129 can include all of the behaviors of the client device 109 from the behavior data 128 or a subset of the behaviors that are verified to be normal or acceptable. …” wherein the behaviors verified to be normal or acceptable suggest no compatibility issue, and the behaviors read on the updated stability information. para [0053], “ In step 309, the management service 120 can identify an update incompatibility based on updated behavior data 128 from the first subset of the client devices 109 that have installed the operating system update 155. …” para [0057], “... The update ticket can identify an incompatible application or driver, and request appropriate action be taken to resolve the incompatibility. The update ticket can be provided through a user interface of the management service 120 or transmitted to a client device 109 associated with an information technology professional or administrator. ….”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Murthy because it provides a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates as suggested by Murthy (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 12, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of Lochan and Wada as applied to claim 1, in further view of Murthy (US 20220253302 A1, hereinafter “Murthy”) and Morley et al. (US 20160162275 A1, hereinafter “Morley”).
With respect to claim 6, Dattatri as modified by Lochan and Wada discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, detecting that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.
However, in analogous art, Murthy discloses wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed [after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on], as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, detecting that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device (e.g. para [0041], “… The baseline profile 129 can include all of the behaviors of the client device 109 from the behavior data 128 or a subset of the behaviors that are verified to be normal or acceptable. …” wherein the behaviors verified to be normal or acceptable suggest no compatibility issue, and the behaviors read on the updated stability information. para [0053], “ In step 309, the management service 120 can identify an update incompatibility based on updated behavior data 128 from the first subset of the client devices 109 that have installed the operating system update 155. …” para [0057], “... The update ticket can identify an incompatible application or driver, and request appropriate action be taken to resolve the incompatibility. The update ticket can be provided through a user interface of the management service 120 or transmitted to a client device 109 associated with an information technology professional or administrator. ….”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Murthy because it provides a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates as suggested by Murthy (see para [0009]).
Dattatri as modified by Lochan, Wada and Murthy does not appear to explicitly disclose (transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed) after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on … However this is taught in analogous art, Morley (e.g. para [0044], “… if a compatibility match is not found in the target version catalog, as shown in step S240, the App Checker module 17 populates an application quarantine or removal database with the application identifying information, including the app ID, version number, build number, and a status of whether the application is affirmatively quarantined or removed. ...”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Morley because it provides techniques for managing incompatible applications for updating processes to overcome drawbacks. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for managing incompatible applications for updating processes to overcome drawbacks as suggested by Morley (see para [0002, 0025-0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/25/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p8 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Under Prong 1 of Step 2A, the claims as amended do not recite a mental process….. The amended claims recite a specific technical pipeline that cannot practically be performed in the human mind: (a) receiving error logs from image forming devices, (b) updating stability information indicating compatibility between each version of the application and each platform version associated with a plurality of firmware, (c) identifying firmware installable without incompatibility based on the updated stability information, (d) selecting to install a newest version of the firmware among the identified firmware, and (e) transmitting a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication of whether a firmware upgrade is allowed. The process of … is not something a human mind is equipped to perform.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the updating stability information, identifying firmware installable and selecting a newest version to install are mental processes as human can manually perform processes. The receiving error logs and transmitting a command are not mental processes, but they are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and transmitting which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data.
At p8 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Even if the claims were found to recite an abstract idea under Prong 1, the claims are integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A. The claims as amended produce a concrete technical result: they prevent firmware-application incompatibility that causes device malfunctions by ensuring only compatible firmware is identified and selected for installation, and they control the user interface of the image forming device by transmitting a command for displaying whether the firmware upgrade is allowed. This is an improvement to firmware upgrade management technology, not merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. The transmitting step in particular effects a real-world change on a physical device (the image forming device's user interface), which is indicative of integration into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the result produced by the claims, i.e. preventing firmware-application incompatibility that causes device malfunctions and controlling the user interface for displaying whether the firmware upgrade is allowed is achieved by abstract idea without significantly more. Thus claims do not affect technology, i.e. do not improve technology.
At p8 last to p9 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The Examiner alleged that "updating stability information based on error logs and identifying compatible firmware are mental processes as human can manually perform the processes." Office Action, paragraph 42. Applicant submits that this characterization oversimplifies the claims. The amended claims do not merely "update information" and "identify firmware" in the abstract they recite a specific technical system that receives error logs from deployed image forming devices, updates structured compatibility data between application versions and platform versions, identifies firmware installable without incompatibility from that data, selects the newest compatible version, and transmits a display command to the device's user interface. This is a concrete, technology-rooted process that goes well beyond what a human could manually perform.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action and as explained above, all limitations of the claims are analyzed, mental processes such as “updating …” and “identifying …” are identified. In addition to mental processes, the claims recite additional elements, but these additional elements are either generic computer/components or insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, the claims do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
At p9 last to p10 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The Examiner alleged that "the probability of installation success is an indication of how compatible is the software version with the platform as shown in Table 146 of Fig. 8 in Dattatri. E.g. 100% success indicates 100% compatibility." Office Action, paragraph 44. Applicant respectfully submits that this conflation is incorrect. Dattatri's stability index is a probability percentage (e.g., 80%, 98%, 100%) indicating the likelihood that a software package will install without errors on a particular device platform and hardware configuration. See Dattatri, paragraph [0020] ("if the server determines that a software package was installed on one hundred Dell® Inspiron 5520 laptops and two of them encountered major errors, then the server may determine the stability index associated with that particular platform and configuration to be 98%"). Dattatri's stability index table (Fig. 8) maps software packages against device platform configurations - not application versions against platform versions. Dattatri has no concept of tracking compatibility between individual application versions and individual platform versions associated with firmware. Installation success rate is fundamentally different from application-platform version compatibility.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Dattatri's stability index is about stability for a software package to be installed on a platform, it is not about stability of the software package itself but with respect to the platform. Thus, the stability indicates compatibility between the software package and the platform. Fig. 8 of Dattatri shows platforms with different configurations and software with different versions, wherein the platform configuration is analogous to platform version. Thus, Dattatri teaches the claim features.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect art rejections are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights