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 .
Amended claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-14, and 16-20 as submitted on 5/11/26 were examined. Applicant’s arguments submitted on 5/11/26 were considered, but are moot in view of new rejections made below in response to applicant’s amendments.
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) in further view of Groenendaal (US 2005/0260996).
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 to the WDM system to make one or more changes to the configuration profile of the 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, by the WDM system, the one or more 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 system to make the one or more 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 to/of the wireless device are implemented as changes to the configuration profile of the wireless device (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).
Jasper and Vyas also do not disclose “receiving approval from a subscriber of a wireless device to make one or more changes to a configuration profile of the wireless device”. Jasper and Vyas also do not disclose that the transmitting (step 2 above) was done “responsive to receiving approval from the subscriber of the wireless device”. However, these limitations were disclosed by Groenendaal (paragraphs 15, 21, 29, 58-59 and Fig 7A-9C). The cited portions of Groenendaal shows a user/subscriber of a wireless device (i.e. Fig 1, user of mobile device 114a-c) being able to make one or more changes to various configuration profiles of the wireless device using the interfaces seen in Fig7A-7C. The final approval of the changes occurs when the user/subscriber hits the “Finish” button, which indicates that the user/subscriber-initiated changes have approval to be transmitted for implementation.
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to further modify Jasper’s invention in accordance with Groenendaal’s teachings discussed to arrive at the limitations as recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Groenendaal’s teachings because Groenendaal’s teachings would simplify the configuration of mobile devices (Groenendaal: paragraph 14).
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 and Vyas further disclose wherein the timer is started upon the transmitting the one or more changes to the configuration profile to the wireless device (Jasper: col 3, line 26-col 4, line 7; and col 17, lines 20-33; Vyas: paragraphs 37 and 44).
Claims 7 and 19:
As per claim 7, Vyas further discloses herein the one or more changes to the configuration profile of a wireless device comprise one or more 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 one or more changes to the configuration profile of a wireless device comprise one or more changes to firmware of the wireless device (paragraphs 17-18).
Claim 10:
Jasper further discloses wherein the WDM system can no longer make the one or more 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, 11-13, 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 Groenendaal (US 2005/0260996) 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 one or more 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 one or more 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.
Claim 13:
Vyas futher discloses wherein a request to make the one or more changes originates from the wireless device or wireless device manufacturer of the wireless device (paragraph 17-18 and 37).
Claim 16:
Jasper further discloses preventing the WDM system from making the one or more 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights