DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 a submitted on 3/11/24 were examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 3/11/24 was considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation recited in lines 2-4 of claim 1 appear to be missing some words. In line 3, “…system granting permission the WDM system….” It is submitted that perhaps after “permission” either the word “to” or “for” should be inserted. Claim 8 has similar issues in line 6. Claim 14 has similar issues in line 3.
Claim 9 may have redundantly recited “firmware” twice. Did applicant intend for claim 9 to mirror claim 7 instead?
Claim 12 refers back to the “system of claim 1”, which doesn’t exist. It is assumed that applicant meant to refer back to one of claims 8-11, which are system claims, but it is unclear to which one.
Claim 19 appear to be missing words, which renders the further limitation recited indefinite. Did applicant intend to recite something similar to claim 7?
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to dependency.
Art rejection will be applied as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, 14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper et al (US 7,314,169) in view of (Vyas et al (US 2016/0371074).
Claims 1, 8, and 14:
As per claim 1, Jasper discloses:
transmitting a time-based certificate from a wireless device management (WDM)
system granting permission the WDM system to make changes to a configuration profile
of a wireless device (col 3, lines 25-col 4, line 7; col 16, lines 9-14; The ticket/time-based certificate is delivered wirelessly as discussed in cited column 16, thus the industrial system/device and the entity which delivered the ticket are wireless devices. The tickets also have an expiration time.);
transmitting changes to the wireless device (col 1, lines 49-55 and col 7, lines 1-54; Access to the industrial device is so that updates/repairs/maintenance can be done on the industrial device); and
upon expiration of the time-based certificate, ending the permission granted to the WDM to make changes to the wireless device (col 15, lines 7-16; col 17, lines 20-33; and col 18, lines 44-53; If the time-based ticket expires, further access is denied).
Jasper does not disclose, but Vyas discloses the changes transmitted are changes to the configuration profile (paragraphs 37 and 44; Firmware update).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jasper’s invention using Vyas’s teachings so that the changes transmitted are to the configuration profile. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. generic changes) for another (i.e. specific type of change done to configuration profile/firmware) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 8 and 14. Note that claim 14 is a method claim which receives what is transmitted by the method of claim 1 and execute changes based on whether the time-time based certificate expired, which indicates whether permission is granted or not (i.e. as recited in claim 1). The rejection of claim 14 flows from the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 17:
As per claim 5, Jasper further discloses wherein a timer is associated with the time-based certificate (col 3, line 26-col 4, line 7; and col 17, lines 20-33).
The rejection of claim 5 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 17.
Claim 6:
Japer further discloses wherein the timer is started upon the transmitting the changes to the configuration profile to the wireless device (col 3, line 26-col 4, line 7; and col 17, lines 20-33).
Claims 7 and 19:
As per claim 7, Vyas further discloses herein the changes to the configuration profile of a wireless device comprise changes to firmware of the wireless device (paragraphs 17-18).
The rejection of claim 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 19.
Claim 9:
Vyas further discloses wherein the changes to the firmware of a wireless device
comprise changes to firmware of the wireless device (paragraphs 17-18).
Claim 10:
Jasper further discloses wherein the WDM system can no longer make changes to the wireless device (col 15, lines 7-16; col 17, lines 20-33; and col 18, lines 44-53; If the time-based ticket expires, further access is denied, thus further changes are denied).
Claim 18:
Jasper further discloses associating the timer with an internal clock of the wireless device (col 3, lines 30-40).
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper et al (US 7,314,169) in view of (Vyas et al (US 2016/0371074) in further view of Sharaga et al (US 2025/0039675).
Claims 2 and 11:
As per claim 2, Jasper does not disclose, but Sharaga discloses wherein the changes to the configuration profile are transmitted by firmware over-the-air (FOTA) (paragraph 98).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Jasper’s invention using Sharaga’s teachings so that the changes the configuration profile are transmitted FOTA. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. generic wireless communication protocol) for another (i.e. specific type wireless communication protocol, i.e. FOTA) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The rejection of claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 11.
Claims 3, 12, and 15:
As per claim 3, Jasper discloses receiving a request to make changes to the wireless device (col 6, lines 22-25; col 6, line 66-col 7, line 36; and col 10, lines 53-61). The changes being to the configuration profile of the wireless device is obvious over the additional teachings of Vyas (paragraphs 37 and 44), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
The rejection of claim 3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 12 and 15.
Claims 4 and 13:
Vyas futher discloses wherein herein the request to make changes originates from the wireless device or wireless device manufacturer of the wireless device (paragraph 17-18 and 37).
The rejection of claim 4 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 13.
Claim 16:
Jasper further discloses preventing the WDM system from making changes to the wireless device after expiration of the time-based certificate (col 15, lines 7-16; col 17, lines 20-33; and col 18, lines 44-53; If the time-based ticket expires, further access is denied, thus further changes are denied).
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, Jasper further discloses wherein the changes to the firmware of the wireless device are made to a component of the wireless device (col 1, lines 49-55 and col 7, lines 1-54).
Jasper does not disclose, but Sharaga discloses the component is a subscriber identity module (SIM) (paragraph 98).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Jasper’s invention using Sharaga’s teachings so that the changes are to the SIM of the wireless device rather than change to some unnamed component. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. generic component) for another (i.e. specific component, i.e. SIM) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495